Judgment :- This Writ Petition coming on for hearing of this day, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof the order of the High Court, dated 16-4-1971, and made herein, and the counter affidavit filed herein and the records relating to the order in S. No. 236/70 (GOR 21/1970) dated 22-1-1971 on the file of the respondent and comprised in the return of respondent herein to the Writ made by the High Court and upon hearing the arguments of M/s. T.R. Srinivasan, and K. Ramamurthy, Advocates for the petitioners, and of Mr. P. Jagaraman for the Central Government senior standing counsel, on behalf of the respondent herein, the court made the following order :- 2.The petitioner is admittedly a bona fide purchaser for value of 600 gross of safety matches. It is not in dispute that the purchased the goods from Jothiammal Match Industries, P-L.4 No. 29/67 Kanmasoorangudi within the district of Ramanathapuram. It is not in dispute that at the time when the goods were removed from the factory of Jothiammal Match Industries, which I shall refer to as 'Jothi' the goods suffered the necessary excise duty and the correlative gate pass which is prescribed under the rule framed under the Central Excise Act was also available and made available to the department. The purchase was on 22-7-1970. It appears that on 23-7-1970 the Central Excise Preventive Group Officers visited Jothi and checked the stock and accounts. In the course of their search they discovered certain labels pertaining to 'Velmurugan Match Factory' which is very near the Jothi and whose proprietor is one Ettappan, son of Jothiammal. On a discovery of such mixture of labels belonging to the son's factory in the mother's factory a search was made and it appears that the Officer segregated 18 gross and 125 boxes with the label 'Velmurugan' but inside the Jothi factory. On further enquiry the Department found that on 22-7-1970 the petitioner purchased the aforesaid consignment. The petitioner took a key loan from the State Bank of India and therefore the goods were segregated and kept in a separate godown which, though physically under the control of the petitioner was legally in the custody of the State Bank. On further enquiry the Department found that on 22-7-1970 the petitioner purchased the aforesaid consignment. The petitioner took a key loan from the State Bank of India and therefore the goods were segregated and kept in a separate godown which, though physically under the control of the petitioner was legally in the custody of the State Bank. The goods were verified in the said godown and it was found 120 bundles consisting of 600 gross of 50 matches were covered by a gate pass No. 10 dated 22-7-1970 of Jothi six bundles were opened and examined. In the three bundles labels of 'Velmurugan' factory on the bundles were found. On the reasonable belief that the entire consignment was thus vitiated, but admittedly without checking the entire consignment, the officers seized 600 gross of 50 match boxes for action under the Central Excise Rules. The challenged order was passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise Sivakasi. After giving an opportunity to the petitioner and another, the respondent came to the conclusion that as there was a mixture of labels of Jothi factory and as such mixture is not warranted under the rules, the goods in Jothi factory or wherever they might have been transported should be deemed to be offending goods within the meaning of Rules 71(3) and 52A(5) of the Central Excise Rules. Admittedly no steps were taken to check the entire consignment and segregate the so called offending goods, but the blame is transmitted to the petitioner that he did not segregate it inspite of opportunity having been given to him. The petitioner's case throughout was that he was a bona fide purchaser for value unconcerned with the complexity or mixture of labels with the Jothi factory. In spite of the candid defence of the petitioner the Department did not take any steps to inspect the entirety of the consignment. The respondent finds that the 600 gross match boxes claimed by the petitioner should be deemed to be offending goods, and even though the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser for value, such goods are liable to confiscation. After having said this he goes into the real question and finds that Shri Ettappan contravened Rule 71(3) in that he allowed his labels to be mixed up with the Jothi factory and he was fined a sum of Rs. After having said this he goes into the real question and finds that Shri Ettappan contravened Rule 71(3) in that he allowed his labels to be mixed up with the Jothi factory and he was fined a sum of Rs. 250 so far as Jothi is concerned she was found guilty under Rules 210 and 52A (5). 3.The question in the instant case is whether the petitioner has committed any offence can be said to be in possession of offending goods. 4.The relevant rules which govern the situation are contained in Rule 52A and Rule 71. Rule 52A makes it clear that no excisable goods shall be delivered from a factory except under a gate pass in the proper form or in such other form as the Collector may in any particular case or class of cases prescribe signed by the owner of the factory and countersigned by the proper officer. The content and effect of this rule has to a very great extent relaxed when what was known as 'Self Removal Procedure' was introduced by the Department. The Original procedure in vogue was known as the 'physical control' procedure. It appears that this caused inconvenience and there was also concurrent urge on the part of the Government to repose greater trust and confidence in the trade and industry and with a view to lessen the administrative burden of the Central Excise Department, the 'Self Removal Procedure' was introduced as a matter of fact there was such a change is noted in the judgment of this Court in WP No. 3427 of 1971. Obviously therefore, the gate pass was made out under the self-removal which means that Jothi filled up the gate pass and sent it with the goods removed from her factory with the description contained in the gate pass which suffered an excise duty that all the 620 gross matches did suffer such an excise duty is not dispute. It is also not denied that the gate pass was produced and before the Excise authorities as required under the rules and there a verification as well in this respect. After the removal of the goods the petitioner's godown was checked. It is also not denied that the gate pass was produced and before the Excise authorities as required under the rules and there a verification as well in this respect. After the removal of the goods the petitioner's godown was checked. The point is if the goods were not marked or labelled properly when they were in Jothi factory and when the manufacture has been dealt with by the authorities and fined for such an infraction of a rule for not keeping up to the content and effect of the prescribed rules relating to labelling and stocking can a bonafide purchaser for value who has removed the same not knowing the complexity in the labelling as above, be called upon to suffer conviction and penalty on the same offence for second time. The next rule to be noticed is rule 52A(5)(c). The learned counsel for the respondent would state that rule 52A(5)(a) and (b) would not apply to the facts of this case. The sub-clause (c) provides that if any person enters any particulars in the gate pass which are or which he has reason to believe to be false is liable to ap penalty and the concerned excisable goods shall be liable to confiscation. Who is the person referred to in this particular sub-clause? Though the word 'any' is used, the word should be understood with reference to the context and particular facts of each case. In the instant case it is not denied that the goods are removed under the 'self removal procedure'. Therefore the gate pass and the particulars therein should have been entered by the manufacturer, namely Jothi. The petitioner has nothing to do with the entries in that gate pass. That this is the situation is not denied. In those circumstances, can the petitioner be penalized as if he has committed an offence under Rule 52A(5)(c)? I am of the view that he cannot. Section 52A(5)(c) refers to an overt act on the part of the delinquent manufacturer who deliberately given false particulars in gate pass. As long as the purchaser of excisable goods from a factory is not concerned with the gate pass or the entries made therein this quasi penal provision cannot be attracted so as to punish the petitioner. Section 52A(5)(c) refers to an overt act on the part of the delinquent manufacturer who deliberately given false particulars in gate pass. As long as the purchaser of excisable goods from a factory is not concerned with the gate pass or the entries made therein this quasi penal provision cannot be attracted so as to punish the petitioner. 5.The next rule referred is rule 71, clause (3) Rule 71 in general refers to the method of packing and rule 71(3) lays down that every packet, box or booklet, or the manufacturer's label affixed thereof shall bear in clearly discernible characters, the name of the factory or distinguishing mark, etc. on fair and reasonable reading on this prescription, it is yet again an obligation on the part of the manufacturer. If the manufacturer fails to make his packets or boxes it is for him to suffer the penalty under the general or residuary provision namely rule 210. No doubt there is no express penalty provided for infraction of rule 71. It is possible therefore to invoke rule 210 if there is any violation in the matter of the method of packing as indicated in that rule. But the thing to be remembered is that if such infraction appears in a factory then such conduct is attributable to the manufacturer and not to a purchaser. 6.In the light of this, when the manufacturer has been penalized for the offences as above, I am of the view that for the same offence the petitioner who is bona fide purchaser for value and who is totally unconnected with the particulars in the gate pass or with the labelling of the goods cannot, for the same offence and for a second time be brought to book and penalized. 7.Reliance, however was placed by the learned counsel for the respondent on the decision already referred to by me in W.P. No. 3427 of 1971. 8.There the facts are entirely different. The court found as fact that the purchaser and the manufacturer acted in union and created bogus gate passes and clandestinely effected such removal from the factory and the goods escaped levy of excise duty. It is elementary that excise duty has to be paid at the time of the removal of the goods from the place of manufacture. The court found as fact that the purchaser and the manufacturer acted in union and created bogus gate passes and clandestinely effected such removal from the factory and the goods escaped levy of excise duty. It is elementary that excise duty has to be paid at the time of the removal of the goods from the place of manufacture. There was a deliberate escape of such payment by a concerted action on the part of the manufacturer and the purchaser in that case. It was in those circumstances, the learned Chief Justice, speaking for the Bench said that wherever such goods are traced or in whose ownership or control they may be, they shall be liable for confiscation. The word 'such' used by their Lordship pertinently refers to the peculiar facts concerned and relatable to the goods in question in that case. The goods were admittedly removed clandestinely with a design to avoid payment of excise duty. In those circumstances the learned Chief Justice said that there was a presumption of the commission of the offence in that case even though the goods had left the factory. But in the instant case when the goods left the factory, so far as the petitioner is concerned, he was not aware that there was any misdeclaration in the gate pass or that in the packet which he was removing there was a mixture of labels of two factories. As a matter of fact this could only be discovered only when a test check was made by the department. No one is sure whether out of the entire 600 gross matches how many labels are attributable to 'Velmuguran' factory. The law that is sought to be applied by the respondent so as to bring to book the act, if any, of the petitioner is a quasi penal one. In such proceedings unless one offence is strictly and fully brought home to the accused concerned, he cannot be penalized on suspicions. It was the duty of the department to check entire 600 gross matches and they ought to have separated the labels which are acceptable from those which are not acceptable. There was also a failure of public duty in this behalf. No one can be punished on bare suspicions. It was the duty of the department to check entire 600 gross matches and they ought to have separated the labels which are acceptable from those which are not acceptable. There was also a failure of public duty in this behalf. No one can be punished on bare suspicions. No one again can be punished for a second time for the same offence when another person has been tackled and one punished for the offence. The petitioner is the bona fide owner in possession of the goods in question not knowing the taint if any attached to those goods. Having regard to the rules which are to be considered and applied in this case, I am of the view that the decision of Writ Petition 3427 of 1971 is not applicable as I am of the firm opinion that the petitioner has not committed any offence and the offence also has not been fully brought home and he is being tackled once over on the same set of facts. There is an error apparent in the order which has to be removed. 9.The petition is allowed and the order is quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned. There will be no orders as to costs.