9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (5) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .e. 4th May, 1970, the Inspector, Central Excise, Bhiwani took into possession the above said gold sovereigns which were subsequently seized under Section 66 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 (hereinafter called `the Act'). Jagat Singh and Sobha Rani then gave statements to the authorities that the gold was to be delivered to the petitioner, on which the house and shop of the petitioner were also searched, but nothing incriminating was found. The petitioner was, however, arrested and a confessional statement taken from him under coercion, on which the petitioner filed a complaint under Sections 330/323 of the Indian Penal Code against Ram Chander S.H.O. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani, in his order dated 17-11-1980 held that the S.H.O. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. These petitions were duly received in the department on 5th October, 1978 and were disposed off by Shri J. Dutta, Addl. Secretary to Government of India in the Ministry of Finance vide orders enclosed as Annexure P-8 and P-9. The officer accepted the revision petition against the order Annexure P-3 vide order dated 4-6-1981 Annexure P-8 holding that the statement of the petitioner made on 5th May, 1970 had been taken from him under coercion and could not be relied upon, whereas the revision petition against the order Annexure P-5 was rejected vide an order Annexure P-9 of even date holding that the said petition was time barred as having been filed beyond six months and that no ground for the condonation of delay had been spelt out. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or imposing the penalty, could not be relied upon, it was not open to him to dismiss the second revision petition vide Annexure P-9 on the ground that it was time barred. The assertion made in the application that the first petition had been wrongly entertained due to over-sight, cannot be accepted as both the revision petitions Annexures P-3 and P-4 had been accompanied by applications for condonation of delay. 6. This petition is allowed, the order Annexure P-9 is quashed, but in the light of the fact that the matter has gone from one authority to another since 1980 and a penalty of only Rs. 5000/- had been imposed, I deem it proper that this matter should conclude now rather than send the case on remand. The order Annexure P-5 as also A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
