Bal Ram vs Union Of India And Ors.
1992 Latest Caselaw 126 Del

JUDGMENT

B.N. Kirpal, J.

(1) This judgment will dispose of Civil Writs Nos.1164 and 1142 of 1979 which are directed against the order of the Government of India whereby revision petitions filed by the petitioners against the order of the Collector of Customs and Central Excise were dismissed.

(2) Briefly stated the facts are that on 13/03/1965 the Police and Central Excise & Customs Officials, near the exit gate of Company Bagh opposite Delhi Main Railway Station, recovered from Balram (petitioner) one Gold bar weighing 1698.25 grams of over 14 carat purity. This Gold bar was seized by the officials under Rule 126-L of the defense of India (Amendment) Rules,1962. On a statement alleged to have been made by Balram the business premises of the other petitioner Sant Lal, were raided at Katra Sat Narain, ChandniChowk, Delhi. Indian currency of Rs. 14.720.00stated to be representing part sale proceeds of the seized Gold bar were recovered.

(3) The case was adjudicated upon, after show cause notice had beenissued, by the deputy Collector (Gold), New Delhi who vide his order dated 2 1/06/1971 ordered the confiscation of the said gold bar under the defense of India (Amendment) Rules. Personal" penalty of Rs. 1,000.00and Rs. 15,000.00was imposed on Balram and Sant Lal respectively.

(4) Both the persons filed appeals against the order of the deputy Collector which were subsequently heard by the Collector of Central Excise and dismissed on 4/06/1976. This order of dismissal has be.en upheld in revision by the Central Government.

(5) The two petitioners were also prosecuted under the defense of India Rules, 1962. While Sant Lal was discharged by the Additional Chief JudicialMagistrate, New Delhi, the other petitioner viz., Balram was vide order dated 2/07/1973 sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and was also required to pay fine of Rs. 2.000.00 and in default to undergo six months further rigorous imprisonment. Balram filed on appeal against his conviction and the Assistant Collector of Central Excise also filed a revision petition pray ing for enhancement of the sentence.

(6) Before the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi it was, inter alia, contended on behalf of Balram that the Customs and Excise authorities had extracted,forcibly, a confession from him. In support of this contention reliance was also placed on the report of a medical examination which was conducted after Balram had been taken to Tihar Jail. The report indicated injuries on his person which showed that he had been given abeating. According to Balram the said confession was not voluntary and had been obtained under pressure. The case of Balram was that he was a resident of Bhivani and after getting to know of a scheme by the Government of India who had floated Gold Bonds whereby against Gold, Bonds could be purchased he had obtained the bar of Gold from his grand-mother and come to Delhi to do the needful. According to Balram the Gold Bonds were not available in Bhivani and that is why he brought the Gold to Delhi. In support of his contention Balram examined three witnesses, apart from the documentary evidence in the form of telegrams which were sent by his brother soon after Balram's arrest.

(7) Vide judgment dated 20/04/1974 the Additional Sessions Judge,Delhi allowed the appeal and found Balram not guilty.

(8) The said order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 20/04/1974was considered by the Collector of Central Excise in his appellate order dated 4/06/1976. Referring to this judgment it was observed that the criminal proceedings and the departmental adjudication were independent of each other.The Collector accepted that Balram had admitted that he had purchased Gold from Sant Lal and it is on this premise he proceeded to dispose of the appeal.The revisional authority also referred to the acquittal of Balram and observed that the criminal proceedings were different from quasi-judicial proceedings and it did not necessarily follow that quasi-judicial proceedings should be dropped if the person concerned is acquitted in a Court of law It was further observed that Balram had been given the benefit of doubt and, therefore, that judgment was of little help to the two petitioners.

(9) There can be no doubt that the criminal and departmental proceedings are independent of one another, nevertheless the findings 'which are arrived at by a criminal Court after a regular trial merit serious consideration by the departmental authorities. In 'the present case it had been contended on behalf of Balram and Sant Lal that the confession of Balram was. not voluntary. As is apparent from the revision petition which was filed, the attention of the Government of India was sought to be drawn to the fact that the medical report of Balram, after he had been arrested and sent to Tihar Jail, showed that he had injuries an his person. This was a material circumstance which had a bearing on the question as to whether the confession was voluntary or not. It is indeed unfortunate that neither the Collector while hearing the appeal nor the Central Government has adverted to this aspect at all. While the statements made to the Customs authorities may be admissible in evidence during the adjudication proceedings nevertheless if the contention is that the said statements were not voluntary then that contention has to be examined. The medical report obtained from independent source after Balram had been arrested could not be easily brushed aside. If the confession is not regarded as voluntary then the we has to be decided in favor of the, petitioners. .

(10) The other factor which is important is that the alleged confession was retracted during the criminal trial. The effect of this retraction was also not considered by the departmental authorities. The departmental authorities also have not dealt with the defense which had been put forth, and accepted by the criminal Court, to the effect that the Gold in question had been brought by Balram from Bhivani. In support of his allegation he had examined witnesses before the criminal Court and the Additional Sessions Judge has referred to the same.This circumstance has also not been referred to by the departmental authorities.

(11) The case against Sant Lal was based solely on the aforesaid confession of Balram. If that confession is disregarded, as we must do so, in view of the injuries on Balram, it must follow that there is no basis for connecting the seizure of Gold from Balram with Sant Lal. The retraction of confession merited serious consideration for another reason namely that it in difficult to accept that a person from Bhivani during the time when the defense of India Rules were in operation, would come to Delhi and be able to buy Gold by making only part payment. The case of the Department is that the sum of14.070.00 was a part payment which was made by Balram to Sant Lal. Normally human conduct and specially of a jeweller as Sant Lal would not be to sell any precious item like Gold by accepting only part payment thereof and that too from a person who was not a local resident. Be that as it may, as one of the most material fact and circumstance has not been considered by the departmental authorities viz., the existence of injuries on Balram when he was sent to Jail coupled with the retraction of the confession, the impugned orders have to be set aside.

(12) We accordingly allow these writ petitions and quash the impugned orders dated 21/06/1971 of the deputy Collector, dated 4/06/1976 of the Collector of Central Excise and dated 4/04/1979 by the Government of India. The respondents are further directed to return to Balram the Gold which had been confiscated from him and refund the penalty to the petitioners. These directions should be complied with within a period of three months.

(13) There will be no order as to costs.