Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. - (1.) This is a petition for leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India directed against the judgment and order dated 25th November, 1985 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. The petitioner herein had challenged by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the order dated 26th December, 1975 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur, directing confiscation of 565 wrist watches seized from the petitioner's possession on 12th May, 1973 under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter called 'the Act') and the imposition of penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- under Section 112 of the Act as well as the order dated 10th August, 1979 passed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs dismissing the petitioner's appeal and thereafter the order dated 8th Janurary, 1981 passed by the Government of India dismissing the petitioner's revision.
(2.) It appears that the petitioner alongwith his father and brothers migrated to India from Pakistan. It is stated that the petitioner started business of cutlery in Indira Market, Durg and has got this separate business from other two brothers. The petitioner further asserted that he was not also associated in any business with his cousin Hariram or business of his father. He stated that he lives separately from his brothers and father. In or about April, 1966, the petitioner purchased a piece of land for Rs. 6250/- from one Yeshwant Ram under the registered sale deed in respect of the plot bearing Khasra No. 1167 admeasuring about 182 sq.ft. Similarly his brothers had also purchased plot adjoining the plot of the petitioner. Since, 1973, the petitioner stated that he was, living in two temporary rooms constructed by his brother and petitioner's plot was lying vacant. On or about 12th May, 1973 Superintendent of Central Excise Raipur issued search warrant under Section 105 of the Act authorising one L.B. Tiwari Inspector, Central Excise to search the residential premises of the petitioner. They searched the residential premises at Durg and it was alleged that the house belonged to the petitioner. On 1st April, 1974, the petitioner was detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter called 'COFEPOSA'). On or about 22nd March, 1975, the petitioner while in jail received the letter issued by the Collector for the purpose of extention. of six months' time for the issuance of show cause notice under Section 110(2) of the Act under which the period was extended up to 14-11-74. The petitioner alleged that this letter was never received by him. There is another order on or about 5th January, 1976 passed by the Collector, Central Excise under which it was held that the petitioner had acquired the possession of the wrist watches and these were smuggled goods and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/-.
(3.) The High Court noted the facts as below: "On 12-5-1973 in a search made of the petitioner's bedroom at Durg, a total of 564 wrist watches of foreign mark valued at Rs. 87,455/- were seized from a suit case, a secret cavity in a locked steel almirah, and behind the almirah concealed in a bundle of waste-paper from the petitioner's possession during his presence. A panchnama was prepared at the same time mentioning these facts. The petitioner found himself unable to make any statement at that time on account of which recording of his statement was deferred. However, the petitioner went out of station on 14-5-1973. His statement was then recorded on 30-5-1973, as soon as he was available for this purpose. In his statement Annexure R-III duly signed by him, he admitted these facts and merely denied knowledge of the manner in which the watches came to be in his house. The petitioner was also given a notice to show cause why the period of six months fixed by Section 110(2) of the Customs Act should not be extended but no reply was given by him till 10-11-1973 or even thereafter, therefore, by an order dt 10-11-1973 before expiry of the period of six months' time was extended by the Collector of Customs for a further period of six months for giving a notice as required by Section 124(a) of the Act. Within proviso to subsection (2) of Section 110, a show cause notice specifying the requisite particulars was given to the petitioner on 4-5-1974. In reply the petitioner made a general denial. The enquiry was fixed for giving a personal hearing to the petitioner on 31-10-1975 when the petitioner's counsel appeared and sought an adjournment to 20-11-75 which was granted. However, on 20-11-1975 the petitioner's counsel stated that the petitioner did not want to avail the opportunity of personal hearing or to even cross-examine the witnesses in whose presence the panchnama at the time of the seizure of the watches was made. In the above circumstances and on the basis of facts alleged in the show cause notice which the petitioner did not even care to refute by availing the opportunity given to him at the enquiry. the Collector of Central Excise passed the order dated 26-12-1975, as aforesaid. This order has been affirmed on appeal by the Board and thereafter in revision by the Government of India".;