- (1.) :- This is an application by Manindra Chandra Dey, the writ petitioner, complaining against an imposition of a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- upon him made by the customs authorities. The imposition was made by an order of the Collector dt. 21-4-86, under item (c) thereof and the same was confirmed in appeal by the Tribunal in its appellate order dt. 21-11-89. A reference application therefrom was dismissed by the Tribunal as out of time.
(2.) As the result of the same events two other consequences also followed. The first of these was that Manindra Chandra Dey was also proceeded against under the Gold Control Act (now repealed) and the second consequence was that two gold bars and one gold stick were confiscated. In so far as the gold control proceedings are concerned they form the subject matter of altogether a different legal proceeding and whatever appears herein is not to be treated as any pronouncement upon the same. In so far as the confiscation of the gold bars and gold stick is concerned it is the case of the writ petitioner that this is a matter of complete irrelevance to him, because he never owned nor possessed nor had anything to do with the same. His only grievance is against the imposition of penalty.
(3.) In fact, the question of possession of the three items of gold form the central issue which gave rise to the instant matter. The case of the prosecuting customs authorities is that these gold items were found in a bag which was being carried by Manindra Chandra Dey. He entered the shop room of one Prakash Yadav, a small businessman carrying on trade in gold and, apparently, travel agency. The apprehension took place at the instance of one Nepali boy whose name and address are mentioned in the show-cause notice annexed to the writ petition. The surname of the Nepali boy is Shreshtha. It is surprising that though the Nepali boy's name and the address are given, yet the authorities have satisfied themselves by mere recording in the orders that the Nepali boy is absconding. Apparently, the Nepali boy gave a statement. This will appear from page 90 of the annexures to the writ petition where the statement of Shreshtha is mentioned in the body of the order of the Collector. There is no reason forthcoming why the power of arrest which vests in the customs officials on a combined reading of Sections 104 and 135 was not exercised in relation to Shreshtha.;