IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 4613 of 2010(B)
1. M/S.KALYAN JEWELERS KOLLAM & ERODE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.1,
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONR (APPEALS)
3. THE INSPECTING ASST.COMMISSIONR
For Petitioner :SMT.S.K.DEVI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :17/02/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
..............................................................................
W.P.(C) No. 4613 OF 2010
.........................................................................
Dated this the 17th February, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Pursuant to the surprise inspection of the premises of the
petitioner, conducted by the first respondent, various
incriminating circumstances were brought to light , which led to
penalty proceedings as borne by Ext. P1 order passed by the
first respondent. Being aggrieved of the same, the petitioner
has preferred Ext. P2 appeal before the second respondent.
Since coercive proceedings were pursued during the pendency of
the appeal proceedings, the petitioner was constrained to
approach this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.1523 of 2010 which
led to Extr.P4 judgment, whereby direction was given to consider
the interlocutory application for stay and to pass appropriate
orders thereon, simultaneously intercepting the coercive
proceedings till such time. Pursuant to Ext. P4 verdict, the I.A.
for stay was considered by the second respondent and Ext. P5
order has been passed granting interim stay on condition that
the petitioner satisfied 50% of the penalty imposed
and furnished adequate security for the balance amount, which
forms the subject matter of challenge in this Writ Petition.
W.P.(C) No. 4613 OF 2010
2
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
finding and reasoning given by the second respondent in Ext.P5
are not correct or sustainable and that the only reason given is
non-production of stock register.
3. The learned Government Pleader, referring to the actual
facts and circumstances, particularly with regard to the contents
of Ext. P1 penalty order, submits that quite a lot of unaccounted
sales were unearthed on the particular day of inspection and that
there is wide disparity with regard to the actual facts and figures
submitted from the part of the petitioner. It is also brought to
the notice of this Court that as against the alleged entrustment
of 2.4 Kgms of gold with M/s. Muthoot Bankers, the actual
discrepancy is to an extent of 26 Kgms. The Learned Counsel
also submits that the facts and figures available on record have
been properly considered and that the finding in Ext. P5 is well
supported by reasons.
4. This Court finds it difficult to accept the versions put
forth from the part of the petitioner and to interfere with Ext.P5
order. The order is well supported with reasons and there is
W.P.(C) No. 4613 OF 2010
3
proper application of mind. The petitioner is well at liberty to
agitate the matter in appeal, before the second respondent, in
the course of finalisation of the proceedings. However, taking
note of the huge amount involved, the condition imposed by the
second respondent to satisfy 50% of the penalty, is hereby
reduced to 1/3rd, which will meet the ends of justice.
5. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to satisfy 1/3rd of
the penalty imposed upon the petitioner in place of 50% ordered
in Ext.P5. However, since the time stipulated by the second
respondent in Ext.P5 is already over, the petitioner is permitted
to remit the same within ‘two weeks’ from the date of receipt of
a copy of the judgment. But for variation as above, Ext. P5 is
left in tact . On satisfying the requirement as above, the
petitioner will continue to enjoy the benefit of interim order
granted by the second respondent, till the disposal of the appeal.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.
lk
