B. N. Kirpal, J. ( 1 ) THIS judgment will dispose of Civil Writs Nos. 1164 and 1142 of 1979 which are directed against the order of the Governmentof India whereby revision petitions filed by the petitioners against the order ofthe Collector of Customs and Central Excise were dismissed. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that on 13/03/1965 the Police andcentral Excise and Customs Officials, near the exit gate of Company Bagh opposite Delhi Main Railway Station, recoverd from Balram (petitioner) one Goldbar weighing 1698. 25 grams of over 14 carat purity. This Gold bar was seizedby the officials under Rule 126-L of the Defence of India (Amendment) Rules,1962. On a statement alleged to have been made by Balram the business premises of the other petitioner Sant Lal, were raided at Katra Sat Narain, Chandnichowk, Delhi. Indian currency of Rs. 14. 720. 00stated to be representing partsale proceeds of the seized Gold bar were recovered. ( 3 ) THE case was adjudicated upon, after show cause notice had beenissued, by the deputy Collector (Gold), New Delhi who vide his order dated 2 1/06/1971 ordered the confiscation of the said gold bar under the Defence ofindia (Amendment) Rules. Personal" penalty of Rs. 1,000. 00and Rs. 15,000. 00was imposed on Balram and Sant Lal respectively. ( 4 ) BOTH the persons filed appeals against the order of the deputy Collectorwhich were subsequently heard by the Collector of Central Excise and dismissedon 4/06/1976. This order of dismissal has be. en upheld in revision by thecentral Government. ( 5 ) THE two petitioners were also prosecuted under the Defence ofindia Rules, 1962. While Sant Lal was discharged by the Additional Chief Judicialmagistrate, New Delhi, the other petitioner viz. , Balram was vide order dated 2/07/1973 sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and waalso required to pay fine of Rs. 2. 000. 00 and in default to undergo six monthssfurther rigorous imprisonment. Balram filed on appeal against his convictionand the Assistant Collector of Central Excise also filed a revision petition pray ing for enhancement of the sentence. ( 6 ) BEFORE the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi it was, inter alia, contendedon behalf of Balram that the Customs and Excise authorities had extracted,forcibly, aconfession from him. In support of this contention reliance was alsoplaced on the report of a medical examination which was conducted afterbalram had been taken to Tihar Jail. ( 6 ) BEFORE the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi it was, inter alia, contendedon behalf of Balram that the Customs and Excise authorities had extracted,forcibly, aconfession from him. In support of this contention reliance was alsoplaced on the report of a medical examination which was conducted afterbalram had been taken to Tihar Jail. The report indicated injuries on his personwhich showed that he had been given abeating. According to Balram the saidconfession was not voluntary and had been obtained under pressure. The caseof Balram was that he was a resident of Bhivani and after getting to know of ascheme by the Government of India who had floated Gold Bonds wherebyagainst Gold, Bonds could bepurchased he had obtained the bar of Gold fromhis grand-mother and come to Delhi to do the needful. According to Balram thegold Bonds were not available in Bhivani and that is why he brought the Goldto Delhi. In support of his contention Balram examined three witnesses, apartfrom the documentary evidence in the form of telegrams which were sent byhis brother soon after Balram s arrest. ( 7 ) VIDE judgment dated 20/04/1974 the Additional Sessions Judge,delhi allowed the appeal and found Balram not guilty. ( 8 ) THE said order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 20/04/1974was considered by the Collector of Central Excise in his appellate order dated 4/06/1976. Referring to this judgment it was observed that the criminalproceedings and the departmental adjudication were independent of each other. The Collector accepted that Balram had admitted that he had purchased Goldfrom Sant Lal and it is on this premise he proceeded to dispose of the appeal. The revisional authority also referred to the acquittal of Balram and observedthat the criminal proceedings were different from quasi-judicial proceedings andit did not necessarily follow that quasi-judicial proceedings should be droppedif the person concerned is acquitted in a Court of law It was further observedthat Balram had been given the benefit of doubt and, therefore, that judgmentwas of little help to the two petitioners. ( 9 ) THERE can be no doubt that the criminal and departmental proceedings are independent of one another, nevertheless the findings which are arrivedat by a criminal Court after a regular trial merit serious consideration by thedepartmental authorities. In the present case it had been contended on behalf ofbalram and Sant Lal that the confession of Balram was. not voluntary. In the present case it had been contended on behalf ofbalram and Sant Lal that the confession of Balram was. not voluntary. As isapparent from the revision petition which was filed, the attention of the Government of India was sought to be drawn to the fact that the medical report ofbalram, after he had been arrested and sent to Tihar Jail, showed that he hadinjuries an his person. This was a material circumstance which had a bearingon the question as to whether the confession was voluntary or not. It is indeedunfortunate that neither the Collector while hearing the appeal nor the Centralgovernment has adverted to this aspect at all. While the statements made tothe Customs authorities may be admissible in evidence during the adjudicationproceedings nevertheless if the contention is that the said statements were notvoluntary then that contention has to be examined. The medical report obtainedfrom independent source after Balram had been arrested could not be easilybrushed aside. If the confession is not regarded as voluntary then the we hasto be decided in favour of the, petitioners. . ( 10 ) THE other factor which is important is that the alleged confessionwas retracted during the criminal trial. The effect of this retraction was also notconsidered by the departmental authorities. The departmental authorities alsohave not dealt with the defence which had been put forth, and accepted by thethe criminal Court, to the effect that the Gold in question had been brought bybalram from Bhivani. In support of his allegation he had examined witnessesbefore the criminal Court and the Additional Sessions Judge has referred to the same. This circum tance has also not been referred to by the departmental authorities. ( 11 ) THE case against Sant Lal was based solely on the aforesaid confession of Balram. If that confession is disregarded, as we must do so, in viewof the injuries on Balram, it must follow that there is no basis for connectingthe seizure of Gold from Balram with Sant Lal. The retraction of confessionmerited serious consideration for another reason namely that it in difficult toaccept that a person from Bhivani during the time when the Defence of Indiarules were in operation, would come to Delhi and be able to buy Gold bymaking only part payment. The case of the Department is that the sum of14. 070. 00 was a part payment which was made by Balram to Sant Lal. The case of the Department is that the sum of14. 070. 00 was a part payment which was made by Balram to Sant Lal. Normallyhuman conduct and specially of a jeweller as Sant Lal would not be to sell anyprecious item like Gold by accepting only part payment thereof and that toofrom a person who was not a local resident. Be that as it may, as one of themost material fact and circumstance has not been considered by the departmental authorities viz. , the existence of injuries on Balram when he was sent tojail coupled with the retraction of the confession, the impugned orders have tobe set aside. ( 12 ) WE accordingly allow these writ petitions and quash the impugnedorders dated 21/06/1971 of the deputy Collector, dated 4/06/1976 of thecollector of Central Excise and dated 4/04/1979 by the Government ofindia. The respondents are further directed to return to Balram the Gold whichhad been confiscated from him and refund the penalty to the petitioners. Thesedirections should be complied with within a period of three months. ( 13 ) THERE will be no order as to costs.