Manasnath Roy, J. - (1.) The petitioners have claimed to be partners of the registered partnership firm M/s. Kantilal Chandulal and Company (hereinafter referred to as the said firm) which had and has the official place of business at 208, Jamunalal Bazaz Street, Calcutta-7. The petitioners have stated to be carrying on business as dealers in diamonds and other precious stones. It was their case that in course of such business, they were required to buy diamonds and jewellery from different parts of India and sell them to their customers at Calcutta. It was also stated by the petitioners that purchases made from the parties, were and are duly entered into the books of accounts of the said Firm and apart from purchase and sale of the materials as mentioned above, the petitioners used to receive diamonds and jewellery from various places, for the purpose of repairing and/or sale on commission basis. It has also been categorically stated by the petitioners that the parties, from whom they used to receive materials for sale and on the basis as mentioned above, do not like to disclose their names prior to completion of final transaction, for avoiding disclosure or exposure of their financial position and as such, some of the names of those parties, were not entered into the books of accounts of the said Firms and such transactions were carried on with mutual trust and confidence.
(2.) It has been stated that on or about 2nd/3rd August, 1966, officers attached to the Preventive and Intelligence Unit of the Customs Department, conducted a search, which was claimed by the petitioners to be a roving one, from 4 p.m. on 2nd August, 1966 to 6 p.m. on the next day, at the residence of the petitioners, as well as their business place as mentioned above. The petitioners have alleged further that those officers did not find anything at their residence for seizure and in course of search at the business place as mentioned above and they seized several jewelleries fitted with precious stones, which were displayed at the show-cause and Indian currency notes worth Rs. 63,250/-, apart from seizing certain stones and jewelleries from a portfolio bag kept at the Gaddi, for inspection and approval by the jewellery experts. It would appear that in consequence of such search and seizure, the petitioners were arrested and produced before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, and were released on bail.
(3.) Thereafter, on or about 3rd October, 1966, the petitioners, by their letters as in, Annexure 'B' to the petition and which were addressed to the Assistant Collector, Excise & Customs (Technical), West Bengal, stated in details, the relevant informations in respect of the concerned goods, which according to them, were seized illegally from their business place. It would further appear that on or about 28th January, 1967, the petitioners were informed by the Superintendent P. & T. Customs, West Bengal that the Collector of Customs, West Bengal, was pleased to extend three months time from 3rd February, 1977, for issuance of show cause in the matter. Thus, on the basis of such extension, the petitioners claimed, that the 1st date of the issue of the show cause, was 3rd May, 1967. They have further claimed that they were neither informed nor given any opportunity to oppose the extension as mentioned above and as such, there was contravention of Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). Section 110 of the said Act, deals with seizure of goods, documents and things and provides that where any goods are seized under Sub-section (1) and no notice in respect thereof is given under Clause (a) of Section 124 within six months of the seizure of the goods, the goods shall be returned to the persons from whose possession they were seized. The proviso to the said Sub-section (2) further lays down that such period of six months may, on sufficient ground being shown, be extended by the Collector of Customs for a period, not exceeding six months. Such period of six months according to the petitioners had expired, within which no steps were taken in accordance with law. As such, they have stated that since no prima facie case was made out against them, the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was pleased to release them on bail on 15th March, 1967.;