Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
SURJEET SINGH CHHABRA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/10/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, S.P. KURDUKAR
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. We do
not think that it is a case warranting interference for the
reason that the appellate authority had initially referred
back the matter to the primary authority to reconsider the
matter in the light of the directions issued in that order.
After reconsideration, the confiscation order has been
passed in respect of the gold and in respect of two items,
i.e. FAX machine and video camera and compounding fee was
ordered. On appeal, it was confirmed and on revision it was
also confirmed. The petitioner filed a writ petition in the
High Court. The High Court in the impugned order dated
January 30, 1996 summarily dismissed the writ petition.
Thus, this special leave petition.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner
that the petitioner is entitled to cross-examine the Panch
witnesses and the Seizing Officer for the goods seized in
contravention of the FERA & Customs Duty Act and that the
opportunity has not been given. Therefore, it is violative
of natural justice.
It is true that the petitioner had confessed that he
purchased the gold had brought it. He admitted that he
purchased the gold and converted it as a Kara. In this
situation, bringing the gold without permission of the
authority is in contravention of the Customs Duty Act and
also FERA. When the petitioner seeks for cross-examination
of the witnesses who have said that the recovery was made
from the petitioner, necessarily an opportunity requires to
be given for the cross-examination of the witnesses as
regards the place at which recovery was made. Since the
dispute concerns the confiscation of the jewellery, whether
at conveyor belt or at the green channel, perhaps the
witnesses were required to be called. But in view of
confession made by him, it binds him and, therefore, in the
facts and circumstances of this case the failure to give him
the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses is not
violative of principle of natural justice. It is contended
that the petitioner had retracted within six days from the
confession. Therefore, he is entitled to cross-examine the
panch witnesses before the authority takes a decision on
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
proof of the offence. We find no force in this contention.
The Customs officials are not police officers. The
confession, though retracted, is an admission and binds the
petitioner. So there is no need to call panch witnesses for
examination and cross-examination by the petitioner.
It is contended that under the Rules jewellery is
exempted articles. Kara being a symbol of the religious wear
by the Sikh community, it is a jewellery exempted from the
Act and it cannot be confiscated. In view of the admission
that he had purchased gold, converted as Kara and brought as
such, he necessarily used it. Therefore, he is not entitled
to the benefit of exemption. Under these circumstances, we
do not find any illegality in the order passed by the
authority warranting interference.
The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.