9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (4) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , he has come forward with this second writ petition. It is necessary to point out that the first writ petition was also represented by the Counsel as is the present one. 2. In this writ petition, the only ground urged by Sri Jestmal, learned Counsel for the appellant, is that the retrospective application of Section 123 of the Customs Act, would offend Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution. Zip fasteners were seized from the custody of the petitioner on the 5th and 6th of June, 1984 on which date provisions of Section 123 were not applicable as there was no notification applying provisions of Sec. 123 to the goods seized in this case viz., zip fasteners. A notification was issued under Section 123 (1) of the Customs Act rendering the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onable and fair. Article 21 has conferred a fundamental right to the effect that no person shall be deprived of his right or liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The procedure established by law has to be just, fair and reasonable. The question for consideration is as to whether the retrospective application of Section 123 would justify an inference that the procedure is not just, fair or reasonable. The learned Advocate General invited our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1558 (SC) = AIR 1975 SC 2083 between Balumal Jamnadas Batra v. State of Maharashtra. That was a case of prosecution under Section 135 of the Customs Act in which the question of applicability of Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n to place material to indicate that the goods seized from his possession are not smuggled goods. There are similar provisions in the Evidence Act which do cast burden on the person in possession of certain goods. Section 114 of the Evidence Act provides that the court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. Illustration (a) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act provides that the court may presume that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
