LAXMI NARAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 3rd May, 1970, Ram Chander, S. H. O. Police Station Bhiwani City, apprehended Jagat Singh and Kumari Shobha Rani, near Rail-way Station, Bhiwani. On the personal search of the two, the S. H. O. recovered 50 gold sovereigns from Jagat Singh and 100 sovereigns from Shobha Rani. He took into possession the old sovereigns and also arrested these two persons under Section 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the following day i. 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. had given a beating to the complainant i. e. the present petitioner while he was in police custody and the charges under Section 330/323 of the I. P. C. stood proved. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Rohtak, vide his order dated 21st February, 1997, nevertheless imposed a penalty of Rs. 2000.00 on the petitioner in terms of Section 74 of the Act on the strength of his alleged confessional statement dated 5th May, 1970 (a copy of that order has been appended as Annexure P-2) and an appeal against the order Annexure P-2 was also dismissed by the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh, vide his order dated 16th December, 1977 (Annexure P-3 to the petition ). In another proceeding under Section 74 of the Act, the Deputy Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Chandigarh also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000.00 on the petitioner as also Jagat Singh and Kumari Shobha on the basis of the confessional statement made on 5th May, 1970. A copy of this order has also been appended as Annexure P-4 to the petition. The appeal filed by the petitioner with regard to this order was also dismissed by the Collector, Customs and Central Excise, Chandigarh vide Annexure P-5 dated 14th December, 1977. Aggrieved by the two orders An-nexures P-3 and P-5 the petitioner moved two separate petitions under Section 82 of the Act addressed to the Secretary, Government of India and as they had been filed beyond the limitation period of six months, an application for condonation of delay was also enclosed. 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 is against this impugned order Annexure P-9 that the present petition has been filed.

(2.) NOTICE of motion was issued and the reply has also been filed in which it has been admitted that the revision petition against the order Annexure P-3 had been entertained and decided on merits whereas the one against the order Annexure P-5 had been dismissed as being time barred.

(3.) AS against this, Mr. Bhatia, the learned Additional Standing Counsel for Union of India, has supported the order of the Central Government.