TMI Blog1983 (11) TMI 295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lief that they were acquired in a manner contrary to the provisions of the Act, in consequence of a search of the premises of Apellant a certified goldsmith on 19-10-1974; (b) three account books and seven paper slips indicating transactions of sale and purchase of gold and gold ornaments unauthorisedly were also seized; (c) in his reply to a notice to show cause for violation of Sections 41 and 55 of the Act, the Appellant submitted, inter alia, that - (i) the semi-finished ornaments as well as the ear rings were all family ornaments brought for remaking and polishing that day itself and are not required to be entered in the register being personal ornaments. In any case, there was still time to have the necessary entries made (th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the opinion of the Examiner of questioned documents, reiterated the request for his cross-examination. The request was again turned down and no account of the Appellant s absence on the date fixed for hearing, (14-2-1979), the adjudication was proceeded with ex parte; (e) in adjudication it was held that - (i) admittedly, the seized gold and gold ornaments were not duly entered in the GS-13 Register; (ii) the plea that they belonged to the members of the Appellant s family and were brought to his working premises on the day of seizure itself was untenable, firstly because there was sufficient time before the seizure for making the entries in the GS-13 Register and there was no reason as to why they were not so made except that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was impugned solely in regard to the findings on the alleged transactions in gold and gold ornaments reflected in the seized documents and the levy of fine of ₹ 5000/- under Section 74 of the Act and not the seizure or confiscation subject to payment of fine of the gold or gold ornaments under Section 71 of the Act. It was submitted, inter alia, that - (a) the reliance on the decision in the case of M/s. Kanungo Co. v. Collector of Customs [1983 E.L.T. 1486] was misplaced; it was clearly distinguishable and inapplicable to the facts of the case; (b) the opinion of the handwriting expert was not evidence he having not been examined or offered for cross-examination; (c) in any view, his evidence is frail in character, unlike ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wn to law, are called for. 5. It would appear to us on a perusal of the papers and on the submissions made in the course of the hearing that - (a) in the case of Kanungo Co. v. Collector of Customs (1983 E.L.T. 1486), all that was held was that persons who have given information need not be examined in the presence of the person against whom the proceedings have been initiated and it is not a mandatory requirement that he should be allowed to cross-examine such informants. Failure to afford any such opportunity does not amount to a violation of the principles of natural justice. It did not, however, appear if the Appellant in that case requested for permission to cross-examine the informants and such permission, despite the request, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 S.C.R. 722 - Ishwari Prasad v. Mohammad Isa]; (iv) the Court can, of course, refuse to rely upon the opinion of an expert which is unsupported by reasons (A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 488); (v) the Court must satisfy itself by such means as are open that the opinion may be acted upon. One such means open to the Court is to apply its own observation to the admitted or proved writings and to compare them with the disputed one, not to become a handwriting expert but to verify the premises of the expert in one case and apprise the value of the opinion in the other case. The comparison depends on an analysis of the characteristics in the admitted or proved writings and the finding of the same characteristics in a large measure in the disputed writi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|