9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (3) TMI 291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthority after affording the respondent a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 2. The respondent herein is a licensed pawn broker and the authorities visited the shop of the respondent on 26-8-1983 and found a tin box containing new gold ornaments of 23 ct. purity, weighing 495.500 gms. consisting of chains, thalis, ear-studs, rings etc. Since the above ornaments were not covered by any pawn tickets, voucher or bill, they were seized under mahazar as per law and the proceedings instituted against the respondent herein for contravention of Sections 6(2) and 27(1) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 resulted in the imposition of a fine of ₹ 19,000/- in lieu of confiscation of 495.500 gms. of new gold ornaments under Section 73, besides ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quire that there should be a formal cross-examination of witnesses and cross-examination being part of procedural justice and governed by rules of evidence, they are creation of courts and not part of natural justice as it is understood in jurisprudence. The learned SDR concluded that if the concept of natural justice is stretched beyond permissible limits and given a strained interpretation, it would become artificial justice and therefore the order of remand by the Collector (Appeals) is bad in law. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that having regard to the charge under Section 6(2) against the respondent, coupled with the plea of the respondent that the recovery was from his house and not from the business premises, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons of the parties herein. At the outset I should mention that the main charge against the respondent, who is admittedly a pawn broker, is one under Section 6(2) of the Act for non-accountal of jewelleries under seizure. The main contention of the respondent is that the very seizure was from his residence and not from the business place and the question of accountal would not arise if the seizure was from the house. It is in this context the respondents wanted to avail himself of an opportunity to cross-examine the mahazar witnesses to substantiate his plea that the ornaments under seizure were from his residence and not from his business premises. When the Department has chosen so to place reliance on the mahazar in order to substantiate t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
