- (1.)In the matter of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. And in the matter of a Rule issued upon reading a petition of Sham Lal Sen Co. and the affidavit of verification thereof dated 10th September, 1966, and the exhibits or annexures to the said petition and upon hearing Mr. E. R. Maye, Advocate for the petitioner, calling upon the Opposite parties to show cause why a writ in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued directing the said Opposite parties to forbear from giving effect to any of the purported order viz., order No. 145 of 1966 dated 4th July, 1966. Order No. 35 of 1964, dated 16th March, 1965 and order No. 8/LC. of 1960 dated 19-12-1960 or why a writ in the nature of Certiorari should not be issued cancelling, setting aside or quashing the impugned orders mentioned above and they are further commanded at the hearing of the application to produce in the Court or cause to be forwarded to the Registrar of this court for being so produced all relevant records in connection with this case so that conscionable Justice may be administered by quashing the same or making such other directions as to the court seem fit and proper. And in the matter of an interim order of injunction restraining the respondents and each of them from giving any effect to any of the said purported orders or from any way dealing with or disposing of the gold purported to be confiscated, until the final disposal of the present application. An order of confiscation of gold under section 167(8) of Sea Custom Act, 1878 read with section 23A of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act 1947 passed by the Collector of Land Customs, Calcutta and affirmed on appeal by the Central Board of Excise and Customs as also in revision by the Central Government, is the subject matter of challenge in this Rule which was issued on a writ petition.
(2.)It would be necessary to recount the relevant facts which led to the confiscation and they are shortly as follows: The petitioner Shyamlal Sen Company is a partnership firm and an established bullion merchant at Calcutta. It deals in purchase and sale of gold and bullion at its shop at No. 7, Nalini Sett Road, Calcutta. On January 12, 1960 acting on an information the Deputy Superintendent of Land Customs took out a search warrant from the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate at Calcutta and searched the petitioner's shop on the same day in the afternoon. On such search the Deputy Superintendent, Land Customs found the petitioner to be in possession of 476 and odd tolas of gold in bars, strips, small pieces, circular pieces and guineas. There is a little divergence about the total quantum found and in some of the records including the order now under challenge this figure is shown as 474 and odd tolas but nothing turns on this divergences as according to the petitioner some amount of gold in dust was not taken into consideration by the seizing authorities.
(3.)The aforesaid quantum of the total gold found in possession of the petitioner considered amongst others of the following :- JUDGEMENT_25_LAWS(CAL)8_1971_1.html
The formula of ' Bromo Raulfin ' is : JUDGEMENT_25_LAWS(CAL)8_1971_2.html