( 1 ) BY an order dated 8th March, 1957, the Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs, New Delhi, directed the confiscation of 16 pieces of bathur gold with a marking of r. C. R. D. thereon, under section 167 (8) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878. read with section 19 thereof as made applicable by S. 23-A of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947.-A personal penalty of Rs. 5,000. 00 was also imposed on the petitioner ( 2 ) THE allegations, on which the customs authorities took action against the petitioner, are that on 9th April, 1956, the customs officers of the Central Excise Collectorate. New Delhi, on a prior information, apprehended the petitioner when he was sitting at the shop of Shri Rattan Chand Saraf in Chandni Chowk, Delhi; that he had a bag lying close to him at the said shop; that he was asked by the customs officers to show the contents of the said bag and that on search it was found to contain 12 pieces of Bathur gold with a marking of r. C. R. D. on them. The petitioner was then brought to the Customs House. Delhi, and 4 more bars of similar gold were recovered from him from his waistcoat. THE said 16 pieces of gold weighed 399 tolas, 9 mashas and 2 rattis. The petitioner is alleged to have told the customs officers that the gold in question was purchased by him from one Shri Mukand Lal Saraf of Amritsar. He is also stated to have informed them that in addition to the gold in question, he had purchased various other quantities of gold from the said Shri Mukund Lal Saraf, which he sold through Shri Rattan Chand Saraf of Delhi. Show cause notices were issued to the petitioners, Shri Mukand Lal Saraf and Shri Rattan Chand Saraf on 18th April, 1956. By the said notice the petitioner was asked to show cause why the gold should not be confiscated as the same was believed to have been imported into India by land from a foreign territory without permit. Show cause notices were issued to the petitioners, Shri Mukand Lal Saraf and Shri Rattan Chand Saraf on 18th April, 1956. By the said notice the petitioner was asked to show cause why the gold should not be confiscated as the same was believed to have been imported into India by land from a foreign territory without permit. THE notices to Shri Rattan Chand Saraf and Mukand Lal Saraf called upon them to show cause why penalty should not be imposed on them under section 7 (C) of the Land Customs Act as evidence had been laid that each one of them had procured and permitted some quantity of gold, including the quantity of gold seized from the petitioner, to be kept knowing that it had been passed into India by land from a foreign territory without a permit, under section 5 of the customs Act, 1924 and without validity of the Reserve Bank of India, under section 3 (1) of the Foreign Regulation Act, 1947. IN reply to the show-cause notice Rattan Chand Saraf denied that the connection with the petitioner Mukand Lal Saraf stated that he purchased or sold any gold from petitioner. The petitioner, in reply to the cause notice, reiterated his stand earlier, that the gold in question was purchased by him in a bona fide through Shri Mukand Lal Saraf, to open market at Amritsar and that marking r. C. R. D. was of a refined at Amritsar, who kept regular accounts ness transacted by them. As evidence order of the Collector of Central Land Customs dated 8th March petitioner expressed desire to sumbit records of the Telephone Depart and Telegraph Department and Communication of Rattan Chand Rikhyab Dass at Amritsar. He also wanted to summon Dharm Kanta of the said firm, Rattan chand Rikhyab Dass. The Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs declined to the petitioner on the ground that Sita Ram Agarwal was informed to make own arrangements for the produce required evidence in his defence. " ( 3 ) IT is pertinent to refer to respondence between the petitioner Collector of Central Excise and Land customs pertaining to the petitioner s request to summon evidence. " ( 3 ) IT is pertinent to refer to respondence between the petitioner Collector of Central Excise and Land customs pertaining to the petitioner s request to summon evidence. On 3rd July, 1951 Petitioner wrote to the Collector, Central Excise Collectorate, New Delhi, and in the next paragraphs thereof ave the precise particulars of each transaction made by him and the materials which correspondence the said transactions. In proof he said "in proof of my innocence, i am to summon the following evidence and the same may be collected by to expedite the proceedings. " Then he proceeded to give the past the records required from Delhi District, Amritsar Telephone Exchange Towards the end, the petitioner although request that the Telephone Officer ot Telegraph Office may be directed to produce the records aforesaid, so that he may summon the said records as and we required. There has been some objection of the respondents about the absent material in excise particulars of the materials for the petitioner. IT was also suggested on between respondents that the request was not summon any witnesses but only to records to be preserved so that the summoned as and when required. Question on behalf of the respondent! tempt at hairsplitting, which cannot be tenanced. Where the allegation is natural justice, it is the substance of such requests which has to be soon. APART from that, I find that sufficient particulars have been Riven in the letter dated 3rd July. 1956. which also contains a request that the said materials may be collected by the customs department "to expedite the proceedings" AS I read the letter, it is a clear request to make those records available to the petitioner, and it is not denied on behalf of the respondents that the authorities concerned had the power under the said Act to enforce the production of any witnesses and records That again is not the end of the matter. In reply to the aforesaid letter of the petitioner, the Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs did not raise any of the objections, now suggested at the bar before me, but simply said: "as regards the records of the offices of the Delhi Telephone District, Central Telegraph Office and the firm whom you desire to produce in your defence, arrangements for their production may please be made by you independently. "the objection as to the nature of the request and the alleged ambiguity, therefore, clearly appears to be an after thought. Again, by letter dated29th September, 1966 the petitioner wrote to the Collector, Central Excise Collectorate, wherein it was inter alia. stated " (1) On receipt of these weights (referring to the weights of individual bars supplied by the Department), I instituted enquiries from the refinery of Messrs Rattan Chand Rekhab Das and the following facts could be ascertained so far. On the basis of the said information, I give below the weight of each bar and the name of the person against each bar as appearing in the record of the said refinery from whom the gold was refined and converted into bars. " (This is then followed by the said particulars ). (2) " It is, therefore, prayed , that the customs department may have the said record inspected and I am sure that necessary Information as to the persons who have got the said remaining bars refined, would be available from the said record. If there is any difficulty in this matter, I may be permitted to have the record examined for the above mentioned purpose. This data would conclusively establish that the gold bars under reference were purchased from the local market" (3) "i submit that it would not be possible for me to produce the witnesses or the records as I have no authority to enforce their attendance or production as the case may be. In the interest of justice, the attendance of necessary witnesses and production of the documents, as has been listed by me or may be listed bv me. be enforced through your department " This letter was replied to by the Superintendent (Preventive), New Delhi, on 24th October, 1956, and he said "as regards the witnesses and the records, which you want to produce in defence of your case. It is up to you to arrange the same: It is in these circumstances that the petitioner alleges complete violation of the demands of natural justice. ( 4 ) THE petitioner filed Civil Writ No. 246-D of 1957 (Punjab) Sita Ram Aggarwal v. Union of India, in the Punjab High Court praying for quashing of the order Dt. 8/3/1957. This petition was dismissed by Mehar Singh. ( 4 ) THE petitioner filed Civil Writ No. 246-D of 1957 (Punjab) Sita Ram Aggarwal v. Union of India, in the Punjab High Court praying for quashing of the order Dt. 8/3/1957. This petition was dismissed by Mehar Singh. J. (as he then was) on 7th February, 1962, on the ground that the petitioner had not availed of the alternative remedy of appeal available to him. In the concluding part, the learned Judge observed: "in consequence, this petition fails and is dismissed with costs xxxxxxxx but there is further direction that if there is any difficulty on the question of limitation in regard to the admission of the appeal of the petitioner, because he has not deposited the amount of the penalty, then he is now allowed to deposit the amount of the penalty and his appeal will then be heard by the appellate authority on merits"in the decision of Mehar Singh, J. , there is some discussion about the nature of the request by the petitioner for summoning evidence, but final views were not expressed thereon, because the learned Judge was inclined to dismiss the petition in view of the alternative remedy being available to the petitioner. ( 5 ) AS i have said earlier sufficient particulars had been given about the nature of the evidence required to be summoned and I think, it was a clear request to make those materials available. That apart, the customs authorities did not decline to summon the materials on the ground of vagueness, but on the ground that the petitioner must himself make his own arrangements for the same. If this view were to be upheld, it would be impossible for any person to effectively meet the charge against him I think, it is the duty of the customs authorities to assist an accused person in the production of materials and the statute has conferred that power to that end. After the dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioner took recourse to the various remedies by way of appeal and revision and it is not disputed on behalf of the respondents that in the grounds of appeal as well as of revision a grievance was made about the non-summoning of the evidence. Both the appeal and the revision were dismissed by the Central Board of Revenue and the Central Government respectively. Both the appeal and the revision were dismissed by the Central Board of Revenue and the Central Government respectively. This writ petition can be disposed of on the short ground of denial of natural justice. THE decision of the various authorities constituted under the said Act went against the petitioner on the ground that in view of section 178-A of the Sea Customs Act the burden lay on the petitioner to prove that the gold was not smuggled. He should have been. as I have indicated above, afforded the necessary opportunity to summon the materials and It is not disputed that the materials asked for by him were relevant to the enquiry. I would like to observe that in all such matters a dedicated devotion to rule of law is expected of the authorities exercising judicial or quasi-Judicial powers. The demands and the claims of natural justice cannot be treated with scant respect. The circumstances of this case show that there has been a clear violation of natural justice. ( 6 ) IN these circumstances, this petition must be allowed and the impugned orders quashed. The petitioner will have the costs of these proceedings.