The Madras High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition filed to set aside an order certifying an inventory of seized smuggled gold bars, holding that the Magistrate lawfully adhered to Department of Revenue intelligence instructions without perversity.
None granted; the order certifying the inventory of seized gold bars remains valid.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 10.09.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.R.C.No.488 of 2016
& Crl.M.P.No.3219 of 2016
Deepak Kumar
...Petitioner
Vs.
The Senior Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence No.27, G.N.Chetty Road
T.Nagar, Chennai-17. ...Respondent
Prayer: The Criminal Revision case filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the order dt.07.01.2016 made in Crl.M.P.No.1728 of 2015, R.R.No.26 of 2014 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.II, Egmore, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramachandran For Respondent : Mr.N.P.Kumar
Spl. Public Prosecutor for DRI
ORDER
The present Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the revision petitioner to set aside the order dated 07.01.2016 made in Crl.M.P.No.1728 of 2015 in R.R.No.26 of 2014 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.II, Egmore, Chennai.
from one Mr.Prakash and Ali, without any bills. The cash of Rs.44,37,000/- available in his premises was proceeds of smuggled gold bars sold by him previously and was kept by him to pay for the smuggled gold bars to be received by him on that day. The officers then seized the cut pieces of gold bars and cash of Rs.44,37,000/- under mahazar dated 12.09.2014 and deposited in the premises of Warehouse, Customs Airport, Chennai – 27.
time, (iv) the seized gold is merely 2830 gms, as such cannot be a storage constrain, even otherwise the revision petitioner is willing to stock the seized gold and undertakes to deal with the same only on appropriate orders from the respondent herein or the Court, as the case may be. As such there is prima facie no reason necessitating inventorisation in the first place. The purpose of filing the petition is only to dispose of the goods as is evident from the fact that the revision petitioner raised considerable objections before the adjudicating authority in the manner in which the investigation has been conducted and the seizure of gold and currency effected. He further stated that they are in the business of buying gold jeweler and bullion from individual and local traders. The mahazar dated 12.09.2014 for seizure of gold categorically states that 2076.160 gms of small gold bits are Katcha pieces which means they are not foreign marked gold or smuggled gold. Further the remaining gold weighing 7565.520 gms are bits of gold pieces with foreign making. Merely because the bits contain foreign marking does not conclude that the pieces of gold are smuggled. The licensed Assayer report also not correct. Hence the petition for inventorisation filed by the respondent herein may be set aside and the present Criminal Revision Case may be allowed.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(co)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
Jer
To
RJ(CO)
sm:24.10.2018
Crl.R.C.No.488 of 2016 & Crl.M.P.No.3219 of 2016
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order certifying the inventory of seized gold bars complies with Section 110(1B) and 110(1C) of the Customs Act, 1962.
Whether inventorisation of seized gold bars necessitates the setting aside of the certifying order.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Deepak Kumar
Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
P. Velmurugan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
