Legal Reference Library

The Delhi High Court in Jatinder Kumar Sachdeva vs. The Union Of India And Ors, has clarified that when goods are seized/confiscated, the Customs Department must give a show cause notice under Section 124(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 (the ‘Act’) within six months or within the extended period of further six months, otherwise the goods have to be released to the person from whom they have been seized. Jatinder Kumar arrived from Dubai at IGI Airport Terminal T-3 and was intercepted by Customs officials at the exit gate where he was questioned for detainable goods being in his possession. His gold kara (bracelet) was seized on 11th Februar,y 2015, on the ground that it was imported from Dubai. Kumar sought release of the gold kara along with supporting documents to show that the said kara was his ancestral jewellery and was owned by him even before leaving for Dubai. His representation was not accepted and the kara had not been released till date. Kumar contended that since the Customa au...

Enterprises offering loans against gold jewellery always run the risk of accepting stolen articles and therefore they cannot question the power of police to seize jewels in appropriate cases, the Madras High Court Bench here has said. Justice P.N. Prakash made the observation while disposing of a writ petition filed by the manager of Muthoot Finance, Bazzar Branch, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi district, to forbear Kovilpatti West police from seizing certain jewels pledged with the company. Claiming that his company thoroughly ascertained ownership of jewels before offering loans, the petitioner accused the police of collecting details of jewels pledged with it frequently and connecting them with theft cases by recording false confession statements from the accused. Replying to it, the judge said: “This is indeed a very grey area in which it is dangerous for this court to give any finding this way or that way. All over the world, enterprises that give jewel loans run the risk by accept...

1) Satwant Singh Sawhney Vs. D. Ramarathnam, Asstt. Passport Officer (1967) 3 SCR 525, para 31 2) Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India and another (1978) 1 SCC 248, page 280 3) Damji Valaji Shah & another Vs. L.I.C. of India & others [AIR 1966 SC 135]; 4) Gobind Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & others [1999(7) SCC 76]; 5) Belsund Sugar Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and others [AIR 1999 SC 3125 6) State of Orissa Vs. Binapani Dei [Air 1967 SC 1269] 7) G.P. Singh's Principles of Statutory Interpretation (9th Edition pg. 133). 8) Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar (2nd Edition) Appeal (crl.) 179 of 2008 PETITIONER: SURESH NANDA RESPONDENT: C.B.I. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/01/2008  BENCH: P.P. NAOLEKAR & MARKANDEY KATJU JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT O R D E R [ ARISING OUT OF S.L.P.(CRL.) 3408 OF 2007 ] ................. Now, it has been held by this Court in Satwant Singh's case (supra) that 'personal liberty' within the meaning of Ar...