Loading...

M/S.Kalyan Jewelers Kollam & … vs The Intelligence Officer on 17 February, 2010

Kerala High Court
M/S.Kalyan Jewelers Kollam & … vs The Intelligence Officer on 17 February, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  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

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information