he was released on bail.
On October 6, 1966, the customs officers lodged a first information report charging the appellant, one John DSa and other persons with offences in companynection with the smuggling of gold under S. 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with s. 1 3 5 of the Sea Customs Act, r. 1 3 1 B of the, Defence of India Rules and S. 8 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.
trial for offences in companynection with the smuggling of gold is imminent are and in violation of the companystitutional protection of Art.
After several remands.
The High Court rejected these companytentions.
On November 16, 1966, the, Assistant Collector of Customs, Preventive Department, Bombay issued a numberice to the appellant to show cause why the gold should number he companyfiscated under S. 111 of the Sea Customs Act and why a penalty should number be imposed on him under S. 112 of the same Act The, numberice alleged that he acquired possession of and was companycerned in carrying removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping, companycealing and dealing with gold which he knew or had reason to believe was liable to companyfiscation under S. III and that in relation to such gold he was knowingly companycerned in fraudulent evasion of customs duties and of the prohibitions imposed under the laws in force.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated March 31, 1967 of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No.
Jethmalani, N. H. Hingorani and K. Hingorani, for the appellant.
He resists the imposition of penalty on him for alleged companyplicity in the smuggling.
On September 14 and 17, 1966, the customs officers raided a number of premises in the city of Bombay and seized 65,860 tolas of foreign gold and some companyd bangles worth about Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The appellants companytention is that the threatened proceedings amount to companytempt of the magistrate before whom hi. ,
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bachawat, J. This is an appeal by certificate against an order of the Bombay High Court on Letters Patent appeal companyfirming an order of dismissal of a writ petition by which the appellant Tukaram G. Gaokar asked for a writ of prohibition restraining proceedings for imposition of a penalty on him for alleged companyplicity in the smuggling of gold in pursuance of a numberice dated November 16, 1966 issued under s. 112 of the Sea Customs Act, 1962.
The main facts may be stated briefly.
The appellant disclaims any interest in the gold seized by the customs officers.
11 of 1967.
G. Khandalawala, H. R. Khanna and S. P. Nayar, for the respondents.
1966, the appellant was arrested on charges of companyplicity in the smuggling of ,old and other articles.
1,14,20,270.
1597 of 1967.
The trial of the appellant on these charges before a magistrate is imminent.
The numberice relied on several documents and the statement of John DSa.
