9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 1301X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the learned advocates the appeal is heard and decided today. 3. This appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the Union of India and the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence against the judgment and order dated 20th May, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 16678 of 2010. 4. The subject matter of dispute is the seizure of 27420 kgs. betel nuts, 45 bicycles, one tricycle, one weighing machine and tarpaulin by the appellant Directorate of Revenue Intelligence from the godown of the respondent Md. Mazid @ Md. Tufani at Farbisganj carried out on 19th September, 2010. Pursuant to the said seizure, confiscation proceedings have been initiated. The show cause notice has been iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods. Having considered the arguments of both the parties the learned Single Judge was pleased to hold that the only valid reason for seizure can be that the goods were of the foreign origin but the onus to prove the same was wholly on the customs authorities and the customs authorities failed to prove the same. The learned Single Judge has also held that no seizure can be carried out on mere suspicion unless there were a reasonable belief. Consequently, the learned Single Judge has set aside the seizure but has allowed the confiscation proceedings to proceed further. Therefore, the present appeal. 8. Learned advocate Mrs. Archana Meenakshee has appeared for the appellants. She has assailed the judgment of the learned Single Judge. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court has a very limited scope in the matter of challenge to the order of search and seizure. The Court would only ascertain whether there was any material before the appellants to form a reasonable belief. The adequacy of evidence or the probative value of the evidence is not the subject to be considered by the Court. In the present case, as recorded hereinabove, the appellants did have the information that the stock of betel nuts was stored in the godown of the respondent. The claim of the respondent that it was the same stock that he had purchased from the NCCF through the District Consumer Federation, Kanpur in the month of July, 2009, prima facie, appears to be farfetched. Such a claim undoubte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
