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.