JAHUBARUNNEESA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is on the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to return the sum of Rs. 54, 600/- which was seized on 28-12-1985 in C. No. VIII/10/21/86, cus. Adj. dated 13-6-1986 from the petitioner's premises bearing Door No. 9, 14th Avenue, Harrington Road ,Madras-31.

(2.) BRIEF facts are the following :- On the basis of intelligence gathered, the Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Madras, alongwith the Officers of the central Excise, Madras, on 28-12-1985, searched among others the premises bearing Door No. 9, 14th Avenue, Harrington Road, Madras-31 (hereinafter referred to as the'said premises'). As a result of the search of the said premises and others, the officers were able to recover cut and polished diamonds, foreign currency, primary gold pieces, certain incriminating documents and also Indian currency amounting to Rs. 6, 50, 950/ -. Out of the above said recoveries, we are now concerned with only a sum of Rs. 54, 600/ -. Admittedly, the said premises belongs to the third respondent. It is common ground that at the time of seizure, neither the petitioner nor her husband, the 4th respondent, was present Only the third respondent was present to give details about the items seized. In respect of the amount now in question, which was recovered among others from the bedroom of the petitioner and the 4th respondent, the third respondent informed the search party that the 4th respondent alone can explain the items seized from that bedroom. It appears that the 4th respondent has given a statement that the said sum of Rs. 54, 600/- belonged to his wife, namely, the petitioner herein. However, he has not given a clear statement about this, and further, the petitioner has not put forward any claim on coming to know of the seizure of this amount, before the respondents 1 and 2. It may be mentioned that though in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, it is claimed that the petitioner sent a representation claiming the amount in question, the respondents 1 and 2, in the counter-affidavit, have denied receipt of any such statement, and no proof is produced before me to support the statement that such a representation was sent.