- (1.)The question involved in this appeal is if the seizure and confiscation of certain bars of gold by the Customs authorities is valid. The gold bars in question were despatched by one S.R. Damani from Bombay and were addressed to Nathmall Jalan, the Appellant. The bars were packed in four parcels bearing Nos. 565, 566, 567 and 568.
(2.)The Customs authorities received some secret information, in consequence of which a watch was maintained near Barrabazar Post Office by a Customs officer on February 8, 1962. At about 9-45 in the morning one Pyarelal Jalan was found coming out of the Post Office with a packet in his hand. He was challenged by the Customs officer and on such challenge he stated that the packet carried by him contained four parcels of gold bullion, which had been sent by post from Bombay in the, name of his father Nathmall Jalan. The packets were opened and were found to contain four parcels bearing Nos. 565 to 568, despatched by one S.R. Damani of 315 Kalbadevi Road, Bombay, on February 6, 1962, by air from Shroff Mahajan Post Office, Bombay. The packets were addressed to Nathmall Jalan of 85/1 Manohardas Street, Calcutta. Each parcel was insured for Rs. 200 only and contained one bar of gold.
(3.)Pyarelal Jalan was taken to the Custom House, along with the gold and his father Nathmall Jalan the Appellant was also contracted on the same day, and he also came to the Custom House-Both father and son made statements in writing regarding the gold bars. The substance of the statement of Nathmall Jalan was that he gave a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 in cash to one Shawanmall Damani on February 3, 1962, with instructions to him to go to Bombay and purchase the gold bars. The payment was made in Rs. 1000 and Rs. 100 currency notes. The money was not withdrawn from any Bank as Nathmall kept large sums of money in his house. He did not take any receipt from Damani for the amount paid to him. Instructions were given to buy Bombay bullion weighing 8 kilos. The gold bars are alleged to have been purchased from a bullion merchant in Bombay known as Choksey Virendra Kumar Mohanlal. Being aggrieved by the seizure followed by an order of confiscation of the gold bars, the Appellant moved this Court on September 27, 1962, under Article 226 of the Constitution and obtained a rule nisi which was discharged by a judgment and order of Sinha J., dated August 13, 1964. This appeal is directed against the said judgment and order dated August 13, 1964.