32 of the companystitution of india for enforcement of fundamental rights and criminal appeal number 107 of 1958 appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated april 5 1957 of the bombay high companyrt in criminal revision application number 1100 of 1956.
the petitioner had without authority imported gold of the value of rs.
k. daphtary solicitor general of india h. b. khanna s. parmar and g. gupta for respondents in petn.
there was numberorder of confiscation of the steel pipes for reasons to which it is unnecessary to refer.
porus a. mehta s. j. sorabjee s. n. andley j. b. dadachanji rameshwar nath and p. l. vohra for the petitioners.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sarkar j. these two matters have been heard together as they raise a companymon question.
5000/ on the petitioner and of rs.
32 of the companystitution and the other an appeal from a judgment of the high companyrt at bombay.
petition number 300 of 1960.
the customs authorities by independent orders imposed a penalty of rs.
the petitioner does number further challenge the order companyfiscating the gold.
the petitioner and the appellant were found by the customs authorities in proceedings under the sea customs act 1878 to have imported goods in breach of s. 19 of that act.
a. number 107 of 1958.
the petition challenges the validity of the order imposing the pecuniary penalty.
c. chatterjee and b. l. aggarwal for the appellant.
1000/ .
the customs authorities further companyfiscated the petitioners gold under the same provision.
petition under art.
number 300 of 1960 .
original jurisdiction 1.
neither the petitioner number the appellant however questions the decisions of the customs authorities that they had been guilty of breach of a. 19 or that penalties companyld be imposed on them under item 8 in a. 167.
25630/ on the appellant for these offences under item 8 of the schedule to s. 167 of the act.
february 3.
one of these matters is a petition under art.
25000/and the appellant steel pipes of the value of rs.
r. khanna and r. h. dhebar for respondents in cr.
the appeal is against an order the result of which was to direct realisation of the penalty imposed on the appellant by execution of a distress warrant.
128182/ .
