H.S. Bedi, J.@mdashOn 3rd May, 1970, Ram Chander, S.H.O. Police Station Bhiwani City, apprehended Jagat Singh and Kumari Shobha Rani,
near Rail-way Station, Bhiwani. On the personal search of the two, the S.H.O. recovered 50 gold sovereigns from Jagat Singh and 100 sovereigns
from Shobha Rani. He took into possession the old sovereigns and also arrested these two persons u/s 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
On the following day i.e. 4th May, 1970, the Inspector, Central Excise, Bhiwani took into possession the above said gold sovereigns which were
subsequently seized u/s 66 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 (hereinafter called ''the Act''). Jagat Singh and Sobha Rani then gave statements to the
authorities that the gold was to be delivered to the petitioner, on which the house and shop of the petitioner were also searched, but nothing
incriminating was found. The petitioner was, however, arrested and a confessional statement taken from him under coercion, on which the
petitioner filed a complaint under Sections 330/323 of the Indian Penal Code against Ram Chander S.H.O. The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bhiwani, in his order dated 17-11-1980 held that the S.H.O. had given a beating to the complainant i.e. the present petitioner while he was in
police custody and the charges u/s 330/323 of the I.P.C. stood proved. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Rohtak, vide his order dated
21st February, 1997, nevertheless imposed a penalty of Rs. 2000/- on the petitioner in terms of Section 74 of the Act on the strength of his alleged
confessional statement dated 5th May, 1970 (a copy of that order has been appended as Annexure P-2) and an appeal against the order
Annexure P-2 was also dismissed by the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh, vide his order dated 16th December, 1977 (Annexure P-3 to
the petition). In another proceeding u/s 74 of the Act, the Deputy Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Chandigarh also imposed a penalty of
Rs. 5,000/- on the petitioner as also Jagat Singh and Kumari Shobha on the basis of the confessional statement made on 5th May, 1970. A copy
of this order has also been appended as Annexure P-4 to the petition. The appeal filed by the petitioner with regard to this order was also
dismissed by the Collector, Customs and Central Excise, Chandigarh vide Annexure P-5 dated 14th December, 1977. Aggrieved by the two
orders An-nexures P-3 and P-5 the petitioner moved two separate petitions u/s 82 of the Act addressed to the Secretary, Government of India
and as they had been filed beyond the limitation period of six months, an application for condonation of delay was also enclosed. These petitions
were duly received in the department on 5th October, 1978 and were disposed off by Shri J. Dutta, Addl. Secretary to Government of India in the
Ministry of Finance vide orders enclosed as Annexure P-8 and P-9. The officer accepted the revision petition against the order Annexure P-3 vide
order dated 4-6-1981 Annexure P-8 holding that the statement of the petitioner made on 5th May, 1970 had been taken from him under coercion
and could not be relied upon, whereas the revision petition against the order Annexure P-5 was rejected vide an order Annexure P-9 of even date
holding that the said petition was time barred as having been filed beyond six months and that no ground for the condonation of delay had been
spelt out. It is against this impugned order Annexure P-9 that the present petition has been filed.
2. Notice of motion was issued and the reply has also been filed in which it has been admitted that the revision petition against the order Annexure
P-3 had been entertained and decided on merits whereas the one against the order Annexure P-5 had been dismissed as being time barred.
3. It has been argued by Mr. R.S. Mittal, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the order Annexure P-8 had been made in
favour of the petitioner on the premises that confessional statement dated 5-5-1970 had been taken from the petitioner under duress and as such,
could not be relied upon against him. He has urged that the order Annexure P-4 by which a penalty of Rs. 5000/- had been imposed was also
based upon this very confession and as such, it was not open to the authorities to dismiss this petition against the order Annexure P-9 and that the
delay in filing the revision petition ought to have been condoned as an application for condonation of delay had also been filed.
4. As against this, Mr. Bhatia, the learned Additional Standing Counsel for Union of India, has supported the order of the Central Government.
5. I have considered the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties and find that the present petition deserves to succeed. Once the Central
Govt. had accepted the revision petition vide order Annexure P-8 on the plea that the confessional statement which was the only basis for imposing
the penalty, could not be relied upon, it was not open to him to dismiss the second revision petition vide Annexure P-9 on the ground that it was
time barred. The assertion made in the application that the first petition had been wrongly entertained due to over-sight, cannot be accepted as
both the revision petitions Annexures P-3 and P-4 had been accompanied by applications for condonation of delay.
6. This petition is allowed, the order Annexure P-9 is quashed, but in the light of the fact that the matter has gone from one authority to another
since 1980 and a penalty of only Rs. 5000/- had been imposed, I deem it proper that this matter should conclude now rather than send the case on
remand. The order Annexure P-5 as also Annexure P-9 are accordingly, quashed,