Holding

A confession, even if retracted, binds the petitioner and does not require the opportunity for cross‑examination; moreover, a Kara purchased and used by the petitioner is not exempt from confiscation under the applicable statutes.

Summary

The petitioner, Surjeet Singh Chhabra, purchased gold in India, fashioned it into a Sikh religious ornament called a Kara, and brought it into the country. He was subsequently seized and a confiscation order was issued under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) and the Customs Duty Act. Although he initially confessed to the purchase and later retracted the confession within six days, he sought the right to cross‑examine the five witnesses and the seizing officer, claiming a breach of natural justice. The Supreme Court held that the confession, even when retracted, remained binding and that the petitioner was not entitled to cross‑examination, as the customs officials are not police officers and the admission sufficed. The Court also rejected the contention that the Kara, as a religious article, was exempt from confiscation, noting that it was purchased and used by the petitioner and therefore not covered by any exemption. Consequently, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed, upholding the confiscation order.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to cross‑examination of witnesses and the seizing officer under principles of natural justice after making a confession that was later retracted.
Whether a Kara, as a symbol of Sikh religious wear, is exempt from confiscation under the Customs Duty Act and FERA.
Whether the retraction of a confession negates its evidentiary effect for purposes of confiscation proceedings.

Subjects

FERACustoms Duty Actconfiscationreligious exemptionKaraSikh religious wearnatural justiceconfessionretractioncross‑examination

Judgment

•
A SURJEET SINGH CHHABRA
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

OCTOBER 25, 1996

B [K. RAMASWAMY AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.]

FERA/Customs Duty : ,

Purchasing gold-Making it into an ornament 'Kara'-Wearing it while
C coming to India-Whether attracts dut)-Held admittedly gold was purchased,
converted as Kara and brought to India-Hence not entitled to the benefit of
exemption as symbol of religious wear.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C)
No. 14028 of 19%.
D
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.1.% of the Delhi High Court
in C.W.P.No. 398 of 19%.

.
Harjinder Singh and R.N. Joshi for the Petitioner.

E The following Order of the Court was delivered :

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. We do not think
that it is a case warranting interference for the reason that the appellate
authority had initially referred back the matter to the primary authority to
reconsider the matter in the light of the directions issued in that order.
F After reconsideration, the confiscation order has been passed in respect of
the gold and in respect of the two items, i.e., FAX machine and video
camera and compounding fee was ordered. On appeal, it was confirmed
and on revision it was also confirmed. The petitioner filed a writ petition
in the High Court. The Hi$ Court in the impugned order dated January
G 30, 19% summarily dismissed the writ petition. Thus, this special leave
petition.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner is entitled to cross-examine the Panch witnesses and the Seizing
Officer for the goods seized in contravention of the FERA & Customs
H Duty Act and that the opportunity has not been given. Therefore, it is
818
S.S.CHHABRAv. U.O.I. 819
violative of natural justice. A
It is true that the petitioner had confessed that he purchased the gold
and had brought it. He admitted that he purchased the gold and converted
it as a Kara. In this situation, bringing the gold without permission of the
.authority is in contravention of the Customs Duty Act and also FERA.
When the petitioner seeks for cross-examination of the witnesses who have B
-said that the recovery was made from the petitioner, necessarily an oppor-
tumty requires to be given for the cross-examination of the witnesses as
regards the place at which recovery was made. Since the dispute concerns
the confiscation of the jewellery, whether at conveyor belt or at the green
' ' channel, perhaps the witnesses were required to be called. But in view of C
confession made by him, it binds him and, therefore, in the facts and
circumstances of this case the failure to give him the opportunity to
cross-examine the witnesses is not violative of principle of natural justice.
It is contended that the petitioner had retracted within six days from the
confession. Therefore, he is entitled to cross-examine the panch witnesses
before the authority takes a decision on proof of the offence. We find no D
force in this contention. The Customs official are not police officers. The
confession, though retracted, is an admission and binds the petitioner. So
there is no need to call panch witnesses for examination and cross-examina-
tion by the petitioner.
E
It is contended that under the Rules jewellery is exempted articles.
Kara being a symbol of the religious wear by the Sikh community, it is a
jewellery exempted from the Act and it cannot be confiscated. In view of
the admission that he had purchased gold, converted as Kara and brought
as such, he necessarily used it. Therefore, he is not 'entitled to the benefit
of exemption. Under these circumstances, we do not find any illegality in F
the order passed by the authority warranting interference.

The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.

G.N. Petition dismissed.