9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (3) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rth Rs. 14,670. According to the respondents, the seized goods are liable for confiscation under the Act. Section 124 of the Act reads as follows - "124. No order confiscating any goods or imposing any penalty on any person shall be made under this Chapter unless the owner of the goods or such person - (a) is given a notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the goods or to impose a penalty; (b) is given an opportunity of making a representation in writing within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice against the grounds of confiscation or imposition of penalty mentioned therein; and (c) is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter: Provided that the noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to the learned Counsel for the respondents to do so. When the matter is taken up today, Mr. T.R.K. Kumar Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, admits that no such postal receipt is available amongst the records. However, learned Counsel made an attempt to demonstrate that such a show clause notice was, or must have been, in fact, sent. From the files, available with him, he drew my attention to a copy of a letter dated 17-3-1979 stated to have been addressed to the concerned Postal authority enquiring about the fate of the alleged show cause notice issued by the authority concerned. 3. It must be straightway pointed out that the present writ petition was admitted on 25-1-1979 and rule nisi was issued on the same date. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same on the respondents. Confiscation is a penal process and it is well settled that provisions relating to penal process must be construed strictly and that too, in favour of the subject. In an attempt to get over the inconvenient position, learned Counsel for the respondents states that the procedure contemplated under Section 153(b) of the Act has been resorted to in the instant case. Averments to that effect have been made in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit wherein it is stated that a copy of the show cause notice was also displayed in the office notice-board. It is not stated as to when exactly the display in the office notice-board was done. This is, apart from the question of the propriety of resorting to Section 153(b) of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of petitioner that no show cause notice was issued within the time as required by the provisions of the Act. Section 110(2) of the Act itself is explicit when it states that when no show cause notice is given within the stipulated period, the goods shall be returned to the persons from whose possession they were seized, subject to the proviso which gives a further time of six months. It is not the case of the respondents that the proviso had come into play in the instant case, because their specific case is that the show cause notice was, in fact, issued on 9-3-1979, to the petitioner, which case, I find, cannot at all be accepted on the facts disclosed. This obliges me to interfere in writ proceedings and accordingly, the writ petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
