{"id":202669,"date":"2010-03-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-mr-zohar-taherali-dalal-and-on-30-march-2010"},"modified":"2018-02-07T18:02:43","modified_gmt":"2018-02-07T12:32:43","slug":"union-of-india-vs-mr-zohar-taherali-dalal-and-on-30-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-mr-zohar-taherali-dalal-and-on-30-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India vs Mr.Zohar Taherali Dalal And … on 30 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Union Of India vs Mr.Zohar Taherali Dalal And … on 30 March, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: V.C. Daga, K. K. Tated<\/div>\n
                                            *1*\n\n    kps\n\n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION \n\n\n\n\n                                                                                    \n                         WRIT PETITION NO.668 OF 2000\n                                      with\n\n\n\n\n                                                            \n                        CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2379\/2005\n\n    Union of India.\n    Through the Commissioner of Customs(P).                  ..Petitioner\n\n\n\n\n                                                           \n          -VERSUS-\n\n    Mr.Zohar Taherali Dalal and others.                      ..Respondents\n\n\n\n\n                                                 \n                                ig       ...........\n    Mr.P.S.Jetly, for the Petitioner.\n    Mr.V.M.Advani, for the Respondent No.1.\n    Mr.A.M.Sachwani, for the Respondent No.2.\n                              \n                                      ..........\n\n                                        CORAM : V.C.DAGA & K.K. TATED, JJ. \n          \n\n\n                                        (Dated 30th March, 2010)\n       \n\n\n\n    JUDGMENT (Per K.K.Tated, J):\n<\/pre>\n
    1              Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.
\n    2              By   this   petition   under   Articles   226   and   227   of   the
\n    Constitution of India r\/w Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, the
\n    Petitioner\/Revenue challenges the orders passed by the Customs, <\/p>\n
    Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, West Regional Bench at
\n    Mumbai (in short CEGAT) dated 17.01.1998 passed in Appeals Nos.
\n    178\/1997 and 249\/1997 and dated 15.05.1998 passed in reference
\n    application.\n<\/p>\n
    THE FACTS
\n    3              The Respondent No.1 is NRI and the Respondent No.2 <\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:46:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                            *2*<\/p>\n
    is the Customs Officer. It is the case of the Petitioner\/Revenue that
\n    the Respondent No.1 was involved in smuggling foreign currency of
\n    US   Dollars   40,000   equivalent   to   Indian   Rs.13,30,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
    approximately,   sometime   on   12.10.1995   in   contravention   of <\/p>\n
    Sections 111, 113, 114, 118 and other Sections of the Customs Act,
\n    1962 read with Section 13(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation
\n    Act, 1973. The Respondent No.2 is an officer of the Customs who <\/p>\n
    prima   facie   alleged   to   have   helped   the   Respondent   No.1   in
\n    fradulently   procuring   the   currency   declaration   form   dated
\n    18.09.1995 for US dollars 40,000 without actually importing the <\/p>\n
    same. It is the case of the Petitioner that on 12.10.1995 the officers <\/p>\n
    of the Customs Preventive Commissionerate, Mumbai pursuant to a
\n    specific   prior   information   intercepted   the   Respondent   No.1   i.e. <\/p>\n
    Mr.Zohar   Taherali   Dalal,   the   holder   of   Indian   Passport   issued   in
\n    Dubai   on   11.12.1993   after   he   had   cleared   the   immigration   and <\/p>\n
    customs   for   the   purpose   of   boarding   flight   to   Dubai,   foreign
\n    currency of US Dollars 40,000 was found in his possession.\n<\/p>\n
    4             It   is   the   case   of   the   Petitioner   that   the   show-cause
\n    notices   dated   08.04.1996   were   issued   to   the   Respondents   Nos.1 <\/p>\n
    and 2. In reply thereto, the Respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed their
\n    reply   dated   09.05.1996   and   29.05.1996   respectively.   The
\n    Respondents   Nos.1   and   2   cross-examined   the   various   officers <\/p>\n
    including the Investigating Officer.\n<\/p>\n
    5             After   following   due   process   of   law,   the   Adjudicating
\n    Authority   viz.   the   Commissioner   of   Customs   (Preventive)   passed
\n    the   order-in-original   dated   17.12.1996   confiscating   the   foreign
\n    currency   worth   US   dollars   40,000   along   with   handbag   used   for
\n    carrying  the   currency   under   Section   113(d)   of   the   Customs   Act,
\n    1962 and imposing a personal penalties of Rs.10 Lacs and Rs.5 Lacs <\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:46:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                              *3*<\/p>\n
    on the Respondents Nos.1 and 2 respectively under Section 114(1)
\n    of the Customs Act, 1962.\n<\/p>\n
    6            Against   the   order-in-original   dated   17.12.1996,   the <\/p>\n
    Respondents   Nos.1   and   2   preferred   the   appeals   bearing   Nos.\n<\/p>\n
    178\/1997 and 249\/1997 before the CEGAT. The said appeals were
\n    allowed   by   the   CEGAT   vide   its   order   dated   17.01.1998   and   the
\n    order-in-original dated 17.12.1996 was set aside.\n<\/p>\n
    7            Being   aggrieved   by   the   aforesaid   order   dated
\n    17.01.1998   passed   in   the   appeals,   Reference   Application   under
\n    Section   130(1)   of   the   Customs   Act,   1962   was   filed   by   the <\/p>\n
    Petitioner\/Revenue   before   the   CEGAT   requesting   to   refer   the <\/p>\n
    following questions of law for the opinion of this High Court:-\n<\/p>\n
           (1)    Whether the so called retraction of statement dated  <\/p>\n
                  13.10.1995 would wipe out the original statement
\n                  completely and more so when the statement given
\n                  by   the   accused   on   12th  and   13th  are   spontaneous
\n                  statement and therefore, admissible in terms of the  <\/p>\n
                  Tribunal’s decision reported in 1986 (25) ELT 541
\n                  and 1986(25) ELT 413?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (2)    Whether it was permissible for the Tribunal to rely
\n                  on   this   part   of   the   additional   evidence   without  <\/p>\n
                  observing proper procedure in terms of Rule 23 of
\n                  the   CEGAT   procedure   rule   and   in   coming   to   the
\n                  decision   of   exonerating   both   the   accused   in   its
\n                  impugned order and whether the findings based on
\n                  this   fact   would   be   hit   by   rule   23   of   the   CEGAT  <\/p>\n
                  Procedure Rules?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (3)    Whether on the basis of the facts and circumstances
\n                  highlighted   in   the   statement   of   facts   in   this
\n                  application   it   was   proper   and   legal   to   come   to   a
\n                  logical   conclusion   that   the   Department   has   not
\n                  adduced evidence sufficient to raise a presumption
\n                  against   the   accused   and   in   favour   of   the
\n                  Department’s findings in the adjudicating order?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:46:24 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                            *4*<\/p>\n
    8            The CEGAT vide its order dated 15.05.1998 dismissed
\n    the Reference Application holding that no question of law arises for
\n    referring it to the High Court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    9            Thereafter,   the   Respondent   No.1   filed   several <\/p>\n
    applications   with   the   Petitioner\/Revenue   for   return   of   the
\n    confiscated currency as well as pre-deposit which he had made at
\n    the time of preferring the appeal. Inspite of several applications, the <\/p>\n
    Petitioner did not take any action. The Respondent No.1, therefore,
\n    filed Misc. Application dated 12.10.1999 before the CEGAT under
\n    Rule 41 of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal <\/p>\n
    (Procedure) Rules, 1982 with following prayers:-\n<\/p>\n
          “(a) The respondent be directed to strictly comply with
\n               the   order   No.173&   174\/98\/WZB\/C-II   dated  <\/p>\n
               17.01.1998   passed   by   this   Hon’ble   Tribunal   and
\n               return   the   foreign   currency   of   US   $   40,000
\n               forthwith to the appellant.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          (b) The   respondent   be   directed   to   pay   interest   at   the <\/p>\n
               official rate on the above mentioned amount from
\n               the   date   of   passing   of   the   order   i.e.   17.01.1998  <\/p>\n
               passed   by   the   Hon’ble   Tribunal     till   the   date   of
\n               actual payment made to the appellant.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          (c) Contempt   notice   be   issued   against   the   respondent
\n               for   non-compliance   of   the   order   passed   by   this  <\/p>\n
               Hon’ble Tribunal and suitable action be taken as a
\n               consequence thereof.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          (d) Such other incidental orders and reliefs as may be
\n               necessary,   keeping   in   mind   the   facts   and   the  <\/p>\n
               circumstances of the present case.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    10           The CEGAT vide its order dated 04.01.2000 allowed the
\n    Misc.  Application   filed  by  the   Respondent  No.1   and  directed  the
\n    Commissioner   of   Customs   (Preventive)   to   implement   the   order
\n    dated   17.01.1998   forthwith   and   report   the   compliance   by
\n    15.02.2000.\n<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:46:24 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                              *5*<\/p>\n
    11             Instead   of   implementing   the   order   dated   17.01.1998
\n    passed   by   the   CEGAT,   the   Petitioner   preferred   the   present   Writ
\n    Petition on 13.01.2000.\n<\/p>\n
    PRELIMINARY OBJECTION
\n    12             Mr.Advani,   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the
\n    Respondent   No.1,   raised   a   preliminary   objection   about <\/p>\n
    maintainability   of   the   present   Writ   Petition   on   the   ground   that
\n    under   Section   130(3)   of   the   Customs  Act,   1962   if   the   Appellate
\n    Tribunal refuses to state the case on the ground that no question of <\/p>\n
    law arises, the Commissioner of Customs may within six months <\/p>\n
    from the date on which he is served with notice of such refusal,
\n    apply to the High Court and the High Court may if it is not satisfied <\/p>\n
    with   the   correctness   of   the   decision   of   the   Appellate   Tribunal,
\n    require   the   Appellate   Tribunal   to   state   the   case   and   to   refer   it.\n<\/p>\n
    However,   in   the   present   case   no   such   application   under   Section
\n    130(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 was made to the High Court by <\/p>\n
    the Petitioner\/Revenue within six months from the date of order
\n    dated 15.05.1998. In fact the present petition has been filed nearly <\/p>\n
    two years after the order and that too, only after the CEGAT passed
\n    further  order  dated  04.01.2000   directing  the  Revenue   to comply
\n    the   order   dated   17.01.1998.   In   these   circumstances,   Mr.Advani <\/p>\n
    submitted   that   the   Petitioner   ought   to   have   filed   an   application
\n    under Section 130(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 within six months
\n    from   the   date   of   receipt   of   the   order   dated   15.01.1998.   This   is
\n    specific alternate remedy provided under the Act which till today
\n    the Petitioner has not availed. Therefore, the present Writ Petition
\n    is not maintainable on this ground alone and the same is liable to
\n    be dismissed. In support of his preliminary objection, he referred to <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:46:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                           *6*<\/p>\n
    the   Section   130   of   the   Customs   Act,   1962,   during   the   relevant
\n    period, which reads thus:-\n<\/p>\n
                 “130. Statement of case to High Court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 (1)  The Commissioner of Customs or the other
\n                      party may, within sixty days of the date upon
\n                      which he is served with notice of an order<\/p>\n
                      under section 129B (not being an order
\n                      relating, among other things to the
\n                      determination of any question having a
\n                      relation to the rate of duty of customs or to<\/p>\n
                      the value of goods for purposes of
\n                      assessment) by application in such form as
\n                      may be specified by rule made in behalf,
\n                      accompanied, where the application is made
\n                      by the other party, by a fee of two hundred<\/p>\n
                      rupees, require the Appellate Tribunal refer
\n                      to the High Court any question of law
\n                      arising out of such order and, subject to the<\/p>\n
                      other provisions contained in this section,
\n                      the Appellate Tribunal shall, within one
\n                      hundred and twenty days of the receipt of<\/p>\n
                      such application, draw up a statement of the
\n                      case and refer it to the High Court:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      Provided that the Appellate Tribunal may, if
\n                      it is satisfied that the applicant was
\n                      prevented     by    sufficient  cause    from<\/p>\n
                      presenting the application within the period
\n                      hereinbefore specified, allow it to be<\/p>\n
                      presented within a further period not
\n                      exceeding thirty days.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 (2)  On receipt of notice that an application has
\n                      been made under sub-section (1), the person<\/p>\n
                      against whom such application has be made,
\n                      may, notwithstanding that he may not have
\n                      filed such an application, file within forty-
\n                      five days of the receipt of the notice, a
\n                      memorandum of cross-objections verified in
\n                      such manner as may be specified by rules<\/p>\n
                      made in this behalf against any part of the
\n                      order in relation to which an application for
\n                      reference has been made and such
\n                      memorandum shall be disposed of by the
\n                      Appellate Tribunal as if it were an
\n                      application presented within the time
\n                      specified in sub-section (1).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 (3)  If, on an application made under sub-section
\n                      (1), the Appellate Tribunal refuses to state
\n                      the case on the ground that no question of
\n                      law arises, the Commissioner of Customs,
\n                      or, as the case may be, the other party may,
\n                      within six months from the date on which he<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:46:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                              *7*<\/p>\n
                         is served with notice of such refusal, apply
\n                         to the High Court and the High Court may, if
\n                         it is not satisfied with the correctness of the
\n                         decision of the Appellate Tribunal, require
\n                         the Appellate Tribunal to state the case and<\/p>\n
                         to refer it, and on receipt of any such
\n                         requisition, the Appellate Tribunal shall
\n                         state the case and refer it accordingly.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  (4)    Where in the exercise of its powers under
\n                         sub-section (3), the Appellate Tribunal
\n                         refuses to state a case which it has been
\n                         required by an applicant to state, the<\/p>\n
                         applicant may, within thirty days from the
\n                         date on which he receives notice of such
\n                         refusal, withdraw his application and, if he
\n                         does so, the fee, if any, paid by him shall be
\n                         refunded.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    13<\/span><\/p>\n
                  IN   REPLY  to   the   preliminary   objection   raised   by   the
\n    Respondent   No.1,   Mr.Jetly,   learned   counsel   for   the <\/p>\n
    Petitioner\/Revenue   submitted   that   as   the   order   passed   by   the
\n    CEGAT is without considering the facts on record, the Petitioner can
\n    challenge the same under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution <\/p>\n
    of   India.   He   further   submitted   that   the   present   Writ   Petition   is <\/p>\n
    pending for last ten years and therefore, at this stage, the Court
\n    should   not   dismiss   the   same   on   technical   ground   of   alternate <\/p>\n
    remedy.   For   this   proposition,   Mr.Jetly   pressed   into   service   the
\n    judgment in the matter of  Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of
\n    India reported in 2000(122) ELT 333 (SC) wherein the Apex Court
\n    held that when the petition is pending for seven years it is little <\/p>\n
    harsh   to   relegate   the   Petitioner   therein   to   the   alternate   remedy.
\n    Paragraph No.3 of the said judgment reads thus:-\n<\/p>\n
                  “3. The petition had been pending for seven years
\n                  and   it   does   seem   a   little   harsh   to   relegate   the
\n                  appellant after seven years to the alternate remedy.
\n                  The   learned   Additional   Solicitor   General   fairly
\n                  states,   in   the   circumstances,   that   the   order   under
\n                  challenge   may   be   set   aside   and   the   writ   petition  <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:46:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                          *8*<\/p>\n
                 (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.747 of 1962)   may be
\n                 restored to the file of the High Court to be heard
\n                 and disposed of on merits. This is appropriate and it
\n                 should be done expeditiously.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    14           Mr.Jetly,   further   submitted   that   in   alternative   the
\n    Petitioner   already   preferred   Civil   Application   No.2379\/2005   for
\n    allowing the Petitioner to treat or convert the present Writ Petition <\/p>\n
    as Reference Application under Section 130(3) of the Customs Act,
\n    1962. Prayer clauses (b), (c) and (d) of the said Civil Application
\n    read as under:-\n<\/p>\n
          “(b) in   the   alternative   and   without   prejudice,   this  <\/p>\n
               Honourable Court may be pleased to treat\/ convert
\n               the above  petition  as  a  reference application  filed
\n               under Section 130(3) of the Customs Act, 1962.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          (c) that   this   Honourable   Court   may   be   pleased   to
\n               condone the delay,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (i) in   filing   the   petition\/reference   application
\n               from the date of receipt of the order till the date of  <\/p>\n
               filing   of   above   petition\/   reference   application
\n               excluding the time permitted by the Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (ii) from the date of filing of the above petition
\n               till the date of converting the same into a reference
\n               application.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          (d) that this Honourable Court may be pleased to direct
\n               the Appellate Tribunal to state the case and to refer
\n               the   questions   of   law   or   such   other   question\/
\n               questions   of   law   to   it   for   adjudication\/
\n               determination.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    ALTERNATE SUBMISSION
\n    15           Mr.Jetly,   learned   counsel   for   the   Petitioner   further
\n    submitted that if a plea of alternate remedy is upheld by this Court
\n    as raised by the Respondent No.1, in that eventuality the present
\n    petition   may   be   treated   as   Reference   Application   under   Section
\n    130(3) of the Customs Act, 1962.\n<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:46:24 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                              *9*<\/p>\n
    16             IN   REPLY,  Mr.Advani   submitted   that   as   the   Petitioner
\n    preferred   Civil   Application   No.2379\/2005   for   allowing   them   to
\n    treat or convert the present petition as Reference Application under <\/p>\n
    Section   130(3)   of   the   Customs   Act,   1962,   it   shows   that   the <\/p>\n
    Petitioner has abandoned its right to proceed with the Writ Petition
\n    filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against
\n    the   orders   dated   17.01.1998   and   15.05.1998.   At   any   rate, <\/p>\n
    according   to   him,   this   petition   is   not   tenable.   In   support   of   his
\n    submission,   he   relied   on   the   judgment   in   the   matter   of
\n    Commissioner   of   Central   Excise,   Meerut   Vs.   Century   Laminating <\/p>\n
    Company reported in 2005(183) ELT 16 (Allahabad). In that case, <\/p>\n
    the   Allahabad   High   Court   held   that   the   writ   petition   was   not
\n    maintainable   when   alternative   remedy   i.e.   appeal   was   provided <\/p>\n
    under the Act. In that case the Tribunal’s order had attained finality
\n    since the Petitioner therein had neither filed Reference Application <\/p>\n
    under Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 nor filed an
\n    application   for   recalling   or   rectification   of   the   order,   it   was, <\/p>\n
    therefore,   held   that   the   Petitioner   could   not   be   permitted   to
\n    challenge the order of Tribunal after lapse of five years by filing the <\/p>\n
    Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
\n    17             Mr.Advani   further   submitted   that   in   any   case   the
\n    present  Writ   Petition   is  not   maintainable   under  Articles  226   and <\/p>\n
    227 of the Constitution of India because the alternate remedy by
\n    way   of   Reference   Application   provided   under   the   Act   was   not
\n    availed by the Petitioner. Not only that but after the CEGAT passed
\n    the order dated 04.01.2000 under Rule 41 of the Customs, Excise &
\n    Gold   (Control)   Appellate   Tribunal   (Procedure)   Rules,   1982   for
\n    compliance of the order dated 17.01.1998,  the Petitioner filed the
\n    Writ Petition on 13.01.2000 after a period of two years from the <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:46:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                            *10*<\/p>\n
    day   the   order   dated   15.05.1998   was   passed,   as   such,   in   his
\n    submission, this petition is not bonafide and not a fit case to invoke
\n    writ jurisdiction of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
    CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTION
\n    18            After  hearing  both  the   sides  at   length,   we   are   of  the
\n    opinion that the present Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of <\/p>\n
    the Constitution of India challenging the orders dated 17.01.1998
\n    and 15.05.1998 is not maintainable in view of the alternate remedy
\n    available   to   the   Petitioner   under   the   Customs   Act,   1962.   If   the <\/p>\n
    reasons given by the Petitioner were to be accepted as valid basis <\/p>\n
    for  exercising our judicial  discretion to  entertain  this petition on
\n    merits   under  extra-ordinary  jurisdiction   under   Article   226   of   the <\/p>\n
    Constitution   of   India,   then   the   provision   for   reference   would   be
\n    rendered nugatory. A person aggrieved by the final finding of the <\/p>\n
    appellate   authority   would  despite   express  provision   of  reference,
\n    will invoke writ jurisdiction with impunity.\n<\/p>\n
    19            In the present case, there was a specific provision under
\n    Section 130(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 for filing the reference <\/p>\n
    application in the High Court within six months against the order of
\n    refusing   to   refer   the   questions   of   law   to   the   High   Court.   The
\n    Allahabad   High   Court   in   the   matter   of   Century   Laminating <\/p>\n
    Company (supra) held that when the alternate remedy is available,
\n    writ petition should not be entertained as a matter of course.
\n    20            It is to be noted that it is not the case that the question
\n    which is arising from the order of Tribunal raised in the present
\n    petition   cannot   be   raised   in   the   reference   application   and\/or
\n    appeal. When a forum is provided under the statute for filing of the
\n    reference   application   and\/or   appeal,   there   is   no   reason   to <\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:46:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                             *11*<\/p>\n
    supersede the said provision and to file the Writ Petition asking the
\n    Court to adjudicate the matter in Writ Petition under Article 226 of
\n    the Constitution of India. The Apex Court time and again held that <\/p>\n
    the   High   Court   should   not   entertain   the   Writ   Petition   when   the <\/p>\n
    statutory remedy is available to the parties in the statute, unless
\n    exceptional circumstances are made out. When under the statute
\n    there   is   an   allegation   of   infringement   of   fundamental   rights   or <\/p>\n
    when on the undisputed facts the taxing authorities are shown to
\n    have   assumed  jurisdiction  which  they  do  not  possess  can   be  the
\n    grounds   on   which   the   writ   petition   can   be   entertained.   But <\/p>\n
    normally, the High Court should not entertain writ petition unless it <\/p>\n
    is shown that there is something more in a case, something going to
\n    the root of the jurisdiction of the authority, something which would <\/p>\n
    show   that   it   would   be   a   case   of   palpable   injustice   to   the   writ
\n    petition to force him to adopt the remedies provided by the statute.\n<\/p>\n
    21            The   Apex   Court   in   the   matter   of  Uttaranchal   Forest
\n    Development Corporation and another Vs. Jabar Singh and others, <\/p>\n
    reported in (2007) 2 SCC 112, held that as a matter of course the
\n    High Court should not entertain the writ petition when alternate <\/p>\n
    remedy is available under the statute. The judgment reads thus:-
\n    (Head Note-E)
\n                   “E. Constitution   of   India-   Art.26-   Alternative
\n                   remedy-   Available   under   statute-  High   Court  <\/p>\n
                   should   not   ordinarily   entertain   the   writ   petition
\n                   except where a very strong case is made out for
\n                   departure from the general rule- Dispute relating
\n                   to enforcement of workmen’s right and employer’s
\n                   obligation   under   Industrial   Disputes   Act,   1947-
\n                   Even   though   specific   remedy   provided   under   the
\n                   Act,   workmen   instead   of   availing   the   same,
\n                   directly approached High Court under Art.226- No
\n                   exceptional circumstances shown for taking such a
\n                   course-  Held:  High   Court   not   justified   in  <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:46:25 :::<\/span>
\n                                              *12*<\/p>\n
                  entertaining   the   writ   petition-   Writ   Petitioners,
\n                  who   have   not   invoked   jurisdiction   of   Labour
\n                  Court\/   Industrial   Tribunal   under   the   Act,   not
\n                  entitled to any relief in the writ petition.”\n<\/p>\n
    22            In the case of K.K.Shrivstava  v.  Bhupendra Kumar Jain,<\/a> <\/p>\n
    1977 U.J. (SC) 344, three Judge Bench of the Apex Court held as
\n    under:-\n<\/p>\n
                 “4. It is well settled law that while Art.226 of
\n                 the Constitution confers a wide power on the High
\n                 Court   there   are   equally   well   settled   limitation
\n                 which this Court has repeatedly pointed out on the <\/p>\n
                 exercise   of   such   power.     One   of   them   which   is
\n                 relevant for the present case is that where is an  <\/p>\n
                 appropriate   or   equally   efficacious   remedy   the
\n                 Court should keep its hands off…..”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    23            In the case of Naib Subedar Lachhman Dass v.  Union
\n    of India,<\/a> 1977 U.J. (SC) 355, three Judge Bench of the Apex court <\/p>\n
    again ruled that in writ petition filed after a gross delay for which <\/p>\n
    there   is   no   satisfactory   explanation,   the   High   Court   should   not
\n    exercise writ jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
    24            In the case of  P.S.Sadasivaswamy   v.   State of Tamil  <\/p>\n
    Nadu, AIR<\/a> 1974 SC 2271, the Apex Court ruled as under:\n<\/p>\n
                 “It is not that there is any period of limitation
\n                 for the Courts to exercise their powers under Art.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 226,   nor   is   it   that   there   can   never   be   a   case
\n                 where  the  Courts  cannot   interfere  in   a   matter
\n                 after   the   passage   of   a   certain   length   of   time.
\n                 But   it   would   be   a   sound   and   wise   exercise   of
\n                 discretion   for   the   Courts   to   refuse   to   exercise
\n                 their extraordinary powers under Art.226 in the
\n                 case   of   persons   who   do   not   approach   it
\n                 expeditiously   for   relief   and   who   stand   by   and
\n                 allow things to put forward stale claims and try
\n                 to unsettle settled matters.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:46:25 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                             *13*<\/p>\n
    25            In  Rattan Singh & ors.   v.   State of Punjab   & Ors.,
\n    1979   U.J.   (SC)   723,   the   scheme   of   consolidation   of   holdings
\n    relating   to   Village   Bhawanipur,   Tahsil   Garhsankar,   District <\/p>\n
    Hoshiarpur,   Punjab   prepared   by   the   Consolidation   Officer, <\/p>\n
    confirmed   by   the   Settlement   Officer   on   February   11,   1964   was
\n    sought to be challenged in the year 1968 in the writ petition.  The
\n    writ petition was dismissed by the High Court on the ground of <\/p>\n
    delay and latches.  The Apex Court in appeal confirmed that order
\n    holding  that   the   High   Court   was  justified  in   dismissing  the   writ
\n    petition.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    26            In any case, in the present matter, the Petitioner having <\/p>\n
    realized the objection raised by the Respondents in their affidavit in
\n    reply, preferred Civil Application No.2379\/2005 praying to allow <\/p>\n
    them   to   treat\/   convert   the   present   petition   into   a   reference
\n    application under Section 130(3) of the Customs Act, 1962. This <\/p>\n
    itself shows that the Petitioner waived their challenge to the orders
\n    dated 17.01.1998 and 15.05.1998 under Articles 226 and 227 of <\/p>\n
    the Constitution of India and therefore, the Writ Petition deserves
\n    to be dismissed on this count alone.\n<\/p>\n
    CAN WRIT BE TREATED AS REFERENCE PETITION
\n    27            The   Petitioner’s   Civil   Application   No.2379\/2005 <\/p>\n
    praying   to   allow   them   to   treat\/convert   the   writ   petition   into   a
\n    Reference   Application   under   Section   130(3)   of   the   Customs   Act,
\n    1962   cannot   be   allowed   since   it   is   barred   by   limitation.   In   the
\n    present case, the CEGAT passed an order on 15.05.1998 refusing to
\n    refer the questions of law to this Court. The said order was received
\n    by   the   Petitioner   on   26.05.1998,   thereafter,   a   letter   dated
\n    04.06.1988 was addressed to the Deputy Secretary & Legal Adviser, <\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:46:25 :::<\/span>
\n                                             *14*<\/p>\n
    Ministry   of   Law   to   give   legal   advice.   One   Mr.R.Raghupati,
\n    Additional   Legal   Adviser,   Ministry   of   Law,   Government   of   India
\n    gave advice which was received by the Petitioner on 14.10.1998.\n<\/p>\n
    Thereafter,   the   Petitioner   appointed   counsel   on   15.12.1998   for <\/p>\n
    filing   the   present   Writ   Petition.   The   counsel   appointed   by   the
\n    Petitioner   drafted  the   writ   petition   on   25.01.1999   and   the   same
\n    was forwarded to the Department on 23.04.1999 for correction. A <\/p>\n
    fair copy of the petition settled by the counsel was collected by the
\n    Department   for   fresh   typing   on   25.10.1999   and   thereafter,   the
\n    present Writ Petition came to be filed on 13.01.2000. However, as <\/p>\n
    per the provisions of Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, the <\/p>\n
    limitation   for   preferring   reference   in   the   High   Court   is   of   six
\n    months.   There   is   no   provision   under   the   Customs   Act,   1962   for <\/p>\n
    condonation of delay in filing the reference in the High Court. The
\n    Petitioner has also not placed on record any authority to show that <\/p>\n
    the   delay   in   preferring   the   reference   application   under   Section
\n    130(3)   of   the   Customs   Act,   1962   can   be   condoned.   When   the <\/p>\n
    Department   received   the   copy   of   order   dated   15.05.1998   on
\n    26.05.1998, they filed the present Writ Petition on 13.01.2000 i.e. <\/p>\n
    after   the   delay   of   more   than   two   years.   Not   only   this   but   the
\n    Petitioner   preferred   the   Civil   Application   No.2379\/2005   on
\n    08.09.2005 for treating the writ petition as reference application <\/p>\n
    under   Section   130(3)   of   the   Customs   Act,   1962   and   therefore,
\n    there is delay of more than seven years.\n<\/p>\n
    28            The   Apex   Court,   in   the   matter   of  Commissioner   of
\n    Customs   &   Central   Excise   Vs.   Hongo   India   Pvt.Ltd.  reported   in
\n    2009(236) ELT 417 (SC), held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act
\n    is not applicable in preferring the reference application. Head note-
\n    A of the said judgment reads thus:-\n<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:46:25 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                               *15*<\/p>\n
                      “Reference   to   High   Court-   Limitation-   High   Court’s
\n            powers- Whether High Court empowered to condone delay in
\n            filing reference application- Additional period provided in case
\n            of appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) and revision by Central  <\/p>\n
            Government – Appellate Tribunal empowered to condone delay
\n            if   sufficient   cause   for   delay   shown-   For   appeal   and   reference
\n            application   before   High   Court,   180   days   only   provided   by  <\/p>\n
            Parliament and no further period for filing appeal or making
\n            reference to High Court mentioned- Section 5 of Limitation Act,
\n            1963   excluded   in   the   absence   of   clause   condoning   delay   by
\n            showing   sufficient   cause   after   prescribed   period-   Time   limit  <\/p>\n
            prescribed in Section 35H of Central Excise Act, 1944 absolute
\n            and not extendable by court under Section 5 of Limitation Act,
\n            1963. [paras 2, 12, 18, 19, 20 & 21]”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    29            In view of the above findings it can be safely said that <\/p>\n
    when there is no provision to condone the delay in preferring the
\n    reference application in this High Court, the Civil Application No.<\/p>\n
    2379\/2005   which   has   been   filed   after   the   expiry   of   limitation
\n    period   cannot   be   allowed   and   the   same   also   deserves   to   be <\/p>\n
    dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
    30            In   view   of   the   above   facts   and   circumstances   of   the <\/p>\n
    case, it is not necessary to examine the correctness of the impugned
\n    orders of the Tribunal on merits. However, since the parties have <\/p>\n
    also addressed us on merits of the matter, we propose to record our
\n    finding even on merits.\n<\/p>\n
    SUBMISSIONS ON MERIT
\n    31            Mr.Jetly while taking us on merits of the matter urged
\n    that   the   Petitioner\/Revenue   had   received   information   on
\n    12.10.1995 that the Respondent No.1 will be smuggling near about
\n    30,000   to   40,000   US   dollars   to   Dubai.   Pursuant   to   the   said
\n    information, the officers of Petitioner took search of the Respondent
\n    No.1’s   handbag   in   presence   of   the   two   independent   witnesses, <\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:46:25 :::<\/span>
\n                                             *16*<\/p>\n
    which   resulted   in   recovery   of   one   white   coloured   envelope
\n    addressed to Mr.Zohar T. Dala and one brown coloured envelope.
\n    Upon   opening   the   said   two   envelopes,   the   same   were   found   to <\/p>\n
    contain 40,000 US dollars of 100 denomination each. This foreign <\/p>\n
    currency of 40,000 US dollars equivalent to Indian Rs.13,30,000\/-
\n    approximately was recovered and the same was seized under the
\n    Panchanama   under   the   reasonable   belief   that   the   said   currency <\/p>\n
    notes were attempted to be smuggled out of India and hence, liable
\n    to be confiscated.\n<\/p>\n
    32            Mr.Jetly   urged   that   the   statement   of   the   Respondent <\/p>\n
    No.1 was recorded before the Superintendent of Customs, Mumbai <\/p>\n
    under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 wherein he inter-alia
\n    admitted   recovery   of   40,000   US   dollars   from   his   handbag   and <\/p>\n
    stated   that   on   12.10.1995   he   was   to   depart   to   Dubai   by   Flight
\n    No.EK-501 and that he was carrying only his handbag.\n<\/p>\n
    33            Mr.Jetly,   learned   counsel   for   the   Petitioner\/Revenue
\n    submitted that though the Respondent No.1 retracted his statement <\/p>\n
    later on but the same cannot be considered at the time of deciding
\n    the  present  case   because  the  Apex  Court   in   the   matter  of  Vinod <\/p>\n
    Solanki Vs. Union of India  reported in 2009 (233) ELT 157 (SC)
\n    has   held   that   the   Court   must   bear   in   mind   the   attending
\n    circumstances   which   would   include   the   time   of   retraction,   the <\/p>\n
    nature thereof, the manner in which such retraction has been made
\n    and other relevant factors to arrive at a finding as regards to the
\n    voluntary nature of statement or otherwise of a confession which
\n    has been retracted. Mr.Jetly mainly relied on paragraph No.34 of
\n    the said judgment which reads thus:-\n<\/p>\n
             “34. A   person   accused   of   commission   of   an   offence   is   not
\n             expected to prove to the hilt that confession had been obtained
\n             from him by any inducement, threat or promise by a person in  <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:46:25 :::<\/span>
\n                                               *17*<\/p>\n
             authority. The burden is on the prosecution to show that the
\n             confession   is   voluntary   in   nature   and   not   obtained   as   an
\n             outcome of threat, etc. if the same is to be  relied upon solely
\n             for the purpose of securing a conviction. With a view to arrive  <\/p>\n
             at a finding as regards the voluntary nature of statement or
\n             otherwise of a confession which has since been retracted, the
\n             Court must bear in mind the attending circumstances which  <\/p>\n
             would include the time of retraction, the nature thereof, the
\n             manner   in   which   such   retraction   has   been   made   and   other
\n             relevant   factors.   Law   does   not   say   that   the   accused   has   to
\n             prove that retraction of confession made by him was because of  <\/p>\n
             threat, coercion, etc. but the requirement is that is may appear
\n             to the court as such.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    34            Mr.Jetly,   learned   counsel   for   the   Petitioner   further <\/p>\n
    submitted that the Respondent No.1 could not establish the source
\n    from where he had procured such large sum of foreign currency <\/p>\n
    even though no permanent source of income was available to him.
\n    He   further   submitted   that   during   the   course   of   investigation   an
\n    attempt was made by the Respondent No.1 to show that the foreign <\/p>\n
    currency   seized   was   purchased   from   one   firm   viz.   Ulmas   Dubai <\/p>\n
    Exchange   Agency.   When   attempts   were   made   by   the   Petitioner
\n    through the Indian diplomatic channel to confirm this fact with the
\n    said firm, but it did not yield any result and the said firm refused to <\/p>\n
    reply   to   the   queries   raised   by   the   Indian   authorities.   Mr.Jetly
\n    further submitted that it is mandatory for any passenger to produce
\n    the documentary evidence of its source of procurement when the <\/p>\n
    amount   exceeds   250   US   dollars.   In   the   present   case,   the
\n    Respondent No.1 failed to produce any cogent evidence to show
\n    how he procured 40,000 US dollars.\n<\/p>\n
    35            Mr.Jetly,   learned   counsel   for   the   Petitioner\/Revenue
\n    further   submitted   that   the   CEGAT   failed   to   consider   the   various
\n    points   logically   dealt   with   in   the   order-in-original   which   were
\n    supported by the evidence on record. He further submitted that the <\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:46:25 :::<\/span>
\n                                          *18*<\/p>\n
    CEGAT while allowing the appeals of the Respondents Nos.1 and 2
\n    failed and neglected to consider that on 12.10.1995 the Customs
\n    Officers  of   Preventive  Commissionerate,  Mumbai pursuant  to  the <\/p>\n
    specific prior information intercepted the Respondent No.1 after he <\/p>\n
    cleared the immigration and customs for the purpose of boarding
\n    the flight to Dubai and the officers seized foreign currency of US
\n    Dollars 40,000 from his possession.\n<\/p>\n
    36           Mr.Jetly   further   submitted   that   one   officer   of   the
\n    Customs   i.e.   the   Respondent   No.2   fraudulently   managed   the
\n    currency   declaration   form   to   support   the   Respondent   No.1   for <\/p>\n
    smuggling the said foreign currency. He further submitted that the <\/p>\n
    currency declaration form was never executed by the Respondent
\n    No.1   when   he   arrived   in   India.   He,   therefore,   urged   that   the <\/p>\n
    impugned   orders   passed   by   the   CEGAT   dated   17.01.1998   and
\n    15.05.1998 are liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
    PER CONTRA- ON MERITS<\/p>\n
    37           Mr.Advani,   learned   counsel   for   the   Respondent   No.1
\n    submitted   that   the   Petitioner\/Revenue   failed   to   produce   cogent <\/p>\n
    evidence   against   the   Respondent   No.1   to   show   that   he   illegally
\n    brought 40,000 US dollars in India. According to him, when the
\n    Respondent No.1 arrived in India as per law he had executed the <\/p>\n
    currency declaration form showing that he had brought 40,000 US
\n    dollars in India.\n<\/p>\n
    38           Mr.Advani   further   submitted   that   the   Petitioner   also
\n    filed a criminal complaint under Section 135(1)(a) r\/w 135(1)(ii)
\n    of the Customs Act, 1962 and under Section 120-B of the Indian
\n    Penal Code, 1860 against the Respondents Nos.1 and 2 in the Court
\n    of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai. In the said <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:46:25 :::<\/span>
\n                                           *19*<\/p>\n
    complaint, the Petitioner made an application for impleading one
\n    Mr.Solanke   as   accused   No.3,   however,   the   said   application   was
\n    rejected by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated <\/p>\n
    10.04.2003   on   the   ground   that   there   does   not   exist   prima   facie <\/p>\n
    evidence to implead Mr.Solanke as accused No.3. Against this order
\n    dated   10.04.2003,   the   Petitioner\/Revenue   preferred   Criminal
\n    Revision   Application   No.407\/2003   in   the   Court   of   the   learned <\/p>\n
    Sessions   Judge   for   Greater   Mumbai,   which   also   came   to   be
\n    dismissed vide order dated 13.08.2004.\n<\/p>\n
    39            Mr.Advani   further   submitted   that   in   the   aforesaid <\/p>\n
    criminal case before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, several <\/p>\n
    witnesses   were   examined   by   the   Petitioner.   Inspite   of   examining
\n    several   witnesses,   the   Petitioner   failed   to   produce   any   cogent <\/p>\n
    evidence   on   record   against   the   Respondents   Nos.1   and   2.
\n    Therefore, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai vide <\/p>\n
    judgment dated 15.02.2008 acquitted the Respondents Nos.1 and 2
\n    of   the   said   offences   and   also   directed   to   release   the   foreign <\/p>\n
    currency of  40,000 US dollars in favour of the Respondent No.1
\n    after   appeal   period   is   over.   Mr.Advani,   therefore,   submitted   that <\/p>\n
    acquittal of the Respondents Nos.1 and 2 after full fledged trial by
\n    the   competent   Court   itself   shows   that   the   Petitioner   falsely
\n    implicated the Respondent No.1 in the present case. The said order <\/p>\n
    has achieved finality.\n<\/p>\n
    40            Mr.Advani   further   submitted   that   the   officers   of
\n    Petitioner brought on record bogus documents to falsely implicate
\n    the Respondent in the present case. According to him, on the basis
\n    of the endorsement on the Respondent No.1’s passport, he cleared
\n    immigration   on   11.10.1995   for   boarding   Flight   No.EK-501.
\n    Similarly, the Respondent No.1’s ticket also shows Flight No.EK-501 <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:46:25 :::<\/span>
\n                                              *20*<\/p>\n
    and departure time 0430 hours. However, the Petitioner prepared
\n    the Panchanama after 09:30 AM on 12.10.1995. This shows that
\n    the   Petitioner   prepared   the   false   Panchanama   immediately.\n<\/p>\n
    Mr.Advani further submitted that the officers of Petitioner placed <\/p>\n
    on record the boarding pass of Flight No.EK-505   with departure
\n    time 09:45 AM. Not only that but no where the name of passenger
\n    i.e. Respondent No.1 was shown in the said boarding pass of Flight <\/p>\n
    No.EK-505. This itself shows the manner in which the officers of
\n    Petitioner   intentionally   created   the   false   case   against   the
\n    Respondent No.1.\n<\/p>\n
    41           Mr.Advani,   learned   counsel   for   the   Respondent   No.1 <\/p>\n
    further   submitted   that   the   disciplinary   proceedings   were   also
\n    initiated by the Petitioner against their officer i.e. Respondent No.2 <\/p>\n
    Yogesh Kumar under Rule-14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 wherein
\n    the Joint Commissioner of Customs (Vigilance), Mumbai held that <\/p>\n
    the inquiry officer’s observations were based solely on the retracted
\n    statements of the passenger i.e. Respondent No.1 and therefore, it <\/p>\n
    was not necessary to impose major punishment on the Respondent
\n    No.2. Accordingly, the Joint Commissioner of Customs (Vigilance) <\/p>\n
    vide order dated 20.01.2003 held as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                    “It   is   therefore   ordered   that   the   pay   of   Shri   Yogesh
\n             Kumar, Preventive Officer be reduced by two stages from Rs.
\n             6,550\/-   to   Rs.6,200\/-   in   the   time   scale   of   pay   of   Rs.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             5500-175-9000   for   a   period   of   two   years   with   effect   from
\n             01.02.2003.   It   is   further   directed   that   Shri   Yogesh   Kumar,
\n             Preventive Officer  will not earn increments of pay during the
\n             period of reduction and that on the expiry of this period, the
\n             reduction   will   have   the   effect   of   postponing   his   further
\n             increments of pay.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    The   period   of   suspension   in   respect   of   Shri   Yogesh
\n             Kumar, Preventive Officer from 02.07.1996 to 05.08.1998 be
\n             treated   as   on   duty   except   for   the   purpose   of   pay   and
\n             allowances   which   is   restricted   to   the   amount   of   subsistence
\n             allowances paid to him.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:46:25 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                             *21*<\/p>\n
    42            Mr.Advani, therefore, submitted that the Petitioner has
\n    also   not   taken   any   serious   action   against   the   Respondent   No.2 <\/p>\n
    Yogesh Kumar in the departmental inquiry.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    43            Mr.Advani  further   submitted   that   the   present   petition <\/p>\n
    raises   several   disputed  questions   of   facts.   A   mere   perusal   of   the
\n    petition will show that the Petitioner is only agitating the issues of <\/p>\n
    facts which are disputed. According to him, under the Customs Act,
\n    1962 the CEGAT is the last fact finding body and after considering
\n    all   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case,   the   CEGAT   rightly <\/p>\n
    passed the impugned orders on its own merits. Mr.Advani further <\/p>\n
    submitted that the question of law which the Petitioner sought to
\n    raise   in   this   petition   is   that   the   CEGAT   has   allowed   the   appeal <\/p>\n
    merely because the Respondent No.1 has retracted his statement. A
\n    perusal of the impugned order dated 17.01.1998 itself shows that
\n    the CEGAT has not merely allowed the appeal on the basis of the <\/p>\n
    retracted statement but on the contrary it is in the subsequent order <\/p>\n
    dated   15.05.1998   the   CEGAT   was   pained   to   point   out   that   the
\n    Petitioner\/Revenue has totally misunderstood the order-in-original <\/p>\n
    because the order-in-original did not state or suggest or imply that
\n    the retraction statement of the Respondent No.1 would have effect
\n    of nullifying the admissions made in that behalf. On the basis of
\n    these submissions, Mr.Advani submitted that the Petitioner cannot <\/p>\n
    challenge the disputed questions of facts under Article 226 of the
\n    Constitution of India and thus, the petition is liable to be dismissed
\n    with costs.\n<\/p>\n
    44            Mr.Sachwani, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2
\n    adopted   the   submissions   made   by   the   learned   counsel   for   the
\n    Respondent   No.1   and   also   relied   on   the   orders   passed   in   the
\n    criminal proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:46:25 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                            *22*<\/p>\n
    FINDINGS ON MERITS
\n    45             We have heard both the counsel at length and perused <\/p>\n
    the documents on record. Firstly, petition is liable to be dismissed <\/p>\n
    as it involves disputed questions of facts. But, even on the material
\n    available on record without raising any dispute with respect to that,
\n    the   petition   cannot   succeed   on   merit   for   the   reasons   recorded <\/p>\n
    hereinafter.\n<\/p>\n
    46             It is an admitted fact that the Respondent No.1 when
\n    arrived   in   India   declared   40,000   US   dollars   by   executing   the <\/p>\n
    currency   declaration   form.   Though   the   Petitioner   disputed <\/p>\n
    genuineness of the said form, they failed to produce on record any
\n    cogent evidence in support of their say. It is to be noted that when <\/p>\n
    the   Respondent   No.1   was   leaving   India   on   12.10.1995,   he
\n    produced   the   said   currency   declaration   form   and   the   same   was <\/p>\n
    accepted  by   the   Petitioner.   Apart   from   that   during   the   course   of
\n    investigation,   the   Petitioner   failed   and   neglected   to   produce   the <\/p>\n
    original currency declaration form on record. The Petitioner relied
\n    on   a   photo-copy   of   the   currency   declaration   form   which   was <\/p>\n
    handed over by the Respondent No.1 on 12.10.1995 at the time of
\n    preparing Panchanama. This itself shows that the Petitioner failed
\n    and   neglected   to   produce   a   cogent   evidence   on   record   to   verify <\/p>\n
    genuineness of the currency declaration form. Therefore, it is not
\n    possible   to   accept   the   stand   of   Petitioner   that   the   currency
\n    declaration   form   produced   by   the   Respondent   No.1   is  fabricated
\n    document.\n<\/p>\n
    47             It is to be further noted that in a criminal proceedings
\n    before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai, the statements
\n    of several witnesses were recorded including Mohan Ramchandra <\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:46:25 :::<\/span>
\n                                             *23*<\/p>\n
    Salunkhe, Superintendent of Customs, Mumbai (PW-6) wherein he
\n    stated in his  examination-in-chief that the Respondent  No.2 who
\n    was posted on counter No.9 on that day came to him and informed <\/p>\n
    that   one   passenger   had   arrived   by   Emmirate   Flight,   standing   at <\/p>\n
    counter No.9 and brought 40,000 US dollars in currency form. The
\n    said   witness   further   stated   that   the   said   passenger   declared   the
\n    foreign currency of 40,000 US dollars and the currency declaration <\/p>\n
    form bears the signature of the said witness. In similar way, PW-7
\n    Chaudhari   also   stated   in   his   examination-in-chief   that   “one
\n    passenger   by   name   Johar   Ali   Dalal   came   along   with   currency  <\/p>\n
    declaration   form   with   40,000   US   dollars   with   him.   He   produced  <\/p>\n
    before me CD form and US dollars. I counted currency and handed
\n    over   to   my   superior.   I   cancelled   the   currency   declaration   form.   I  <\/p>\n
    dispatched it to Administration Office. I am shown the form. It is the
\n    same form it was produced before me by the passenger and it was sent  <\/p>\n
    to administration office by me.” In similar way, other witnesses also
\n    admitted   the   fact   about   the   currency   declaration   form   and   the <\/p>\n
    currency brought by the Respondent No.1 when he arrived in India.
\n    This itself shows that the Respondent No.1 brought along with him <\/p>\n
    the foreign currency as declared in the currency declaration form.
\n    Therefore, it is not possible to rely on the Panchanama which was
\n    prepared   by   the   officers   of   Petitioner   on   12.10.1995   in   which <\/p>\n
    several incorrect statements were recorded  such as flight number,
\n    timing of flight, confession of Respondent No.1 etc..
\n    48            The Respondent No.1 placed on record a photo-copy of
\n    the   ticket   which   shows   the   Flight   No.EK-501,   departure   time   as
\n    0430 and also shows OK status. If the ticket is of Flight No.EK-501,
\n    how the Petitioner brought on record the boarding pass of Flight
\n    No.EK-505   that   too   also   without   name   of   passenger.   This   itself <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:46:25 :::<\/span>
\n                                            *24*<\/p>\n
    shows   that   the   Petitioner   manipulated   the   boarding   pass   just   to
\n    justify that they prepared the Panchanama immediately before 15
\n    minutes of the departure time of Flight No.EK-505. On the basis of <\/p>\n
    these admitted facts on record, it is not possible to hold that the <\/p>\n
    Respondent   No.1   has   committed   any   offence   in   respect   of
\n    smuggling of the foreign currency  of 40,000 US dollars.
\n    49            In view of the above facts and circumstances, there is <\/p>\n
    no substance in the present Writ Petition and the same deserves to
\n    be dismissed with costs. Accordingly, we dismiss the present Writ
\n    Petition with costs. The Petitioner\/Revenue is directed to pay a sum <\/p>\n
    of   Rs.15,000\/-   (Rupees   Fifteen   Thousands   only)   each   to   the <\/p>\n
    Respondents Nos.1 and 2 towards costs of this petition, within a
\n    period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.\n<\/p>\n
    This costs is imposed on the Petitioner because the Petitioner has
\n    brought on record the bogus documents with intention to harass <\/p>\n
    the Respondents Nos.1 and 2. One of such document is boarding
\n    pass of Flight No.EK-505. The Petitioner\/Revenue is also directed to <\/p>\n
    refund the amount of 40,000 US dollars along with interest @ 9%
\n    from the date of confiscation till its refund to the Respondent No.1, <\/p>\n
    within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
\n    this order.\n<\/p>\n
    50            Accordingly, Writ Petition along with Civil Application <\/p>\n
    are dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
           (K.K.TATED, J.)                                  (V.C.DAGA, J.)\n\n\n\n\n                                                          ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:46:25 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Union Of India vs Mr.Zohar Taherali Dalal And … on 30 March, 2010 Bench: V.C. Daga, K. K. Tated *1* kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.668 OF 2000 with CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2379\/2005 Union of India. Through the Commissioner of Customs(P). ..Petitioner -VERSUS- Mr.Zohar […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-202669","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Of India vs Mr.Zohar Taherali Dalal And ... on 30 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-mr-zohar-taherali-dalal-and-on-30-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India vs Mr.Zohar Taherali Dalal And ... on 30 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-mr-zohar-taherali-dalal-and-on-30-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-03-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-07T12:32:43+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"33 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-mr-zohar-taherali-dalal-and-on-30-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-mr-zohar-taherali-dalal-and-on-30-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India vs Mr.Zohar Taherali Dalal And … on 30 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-07T12:32:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-mr-zohar-taherali-dalal-and-on-30-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":6625,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-mr-zohar-taherali-dalal-and-on-30-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-mr-zohar-taherali-dalal-and-on-30-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-mr-zohar-taherali-dalal-and-on-30-march-2010\",\"name\":\"Union Of India vs Mr.Zohar Taherali Dalal And ... on 30 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-07T12:32:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-mr-zohar-taherali-dalal-and-on-30-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-mr-zohar-taherali-dalal-and-on-30-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-mr-zohar-taherali-dalal-and-on-30-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India vs Mr.Zohar Taherali Dalal And … on 30 March, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Union Of India vs Mr.Zohar Taherali Dalal And ... on 30 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-mr-zohar-taherali-dalal-and-on-30-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India vs Mr.Zohar Taherali Dalal And ... on 30 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-mr-zohar-taherali-dalal-and-on-30-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-07T12:32:43+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"33 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-mr-zohar-taherali-dalal-and-on-30-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-mr-zohar-taherali-dalal-and-on-30-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India vs Mr.Zohar Taherali Dalal And … on 30 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-07T12:32:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-mr-zohar-taherali-dalal-and-on-30-march-2010"},"wordCount":6625,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-mr-zohar-taherali-dalal-and-on-30-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-mr-zohar-taherali-dalal-and-on-30-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-mr-zohar-taherali-dalal-and-on-30-march-2010","name":"Union Of India vs Mr.Zohar Taherali Dalal And ... on 30 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-07T12:32:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-mr-zohar-taherali-dalal-and-on-30-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-mr-zohar-taherali-dalal-and-on-30-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-mr-zohar-taherali-dalal-and-on-30-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India vs Mr.Zohar Taherali Dalal And … on 30 March, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/202669","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=202669"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/202669\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=202669"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=202669"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=202669"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}