Durga Dass Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

- section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - 3, the deputy collector ordered confiscation of nine gold coins weighing one tola each, bearing foreign mark (pure tazabi gold karachi) under section 111 of the customs act, 1962 and section 71 of the gold (control) act, 1968 and further ordered confiscation of four patties of primary gold weighing 40 tolas under section 71 of the gold (control) act, 1968. these confiscations have been maintained by the appellate authority as well as by the revisional authority......customs in central excise, the appellate order passed by the collector of customs, new delhi dated 23-7-1980 and of the joint secretary to the government of india, dated 12-2-1988 ex. 9. by the impugned order vide ex. 3, the deputy collector ordered confiscation of nine gold coins weighing one tola each, bearing foreign mark (pure tazabi gold karachi) under section 111 of the customs act, 1962 and section 71 of the gold (control) act, 1968 and further ordered confiscation of four patties of primary gold weighing 40 tolas under section 71 of the gold (control) act, 1968. these confiscations have been maintained by the appellate authority as well as by the revisional authority.3. learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the findings with regard to confiscation of nine gold coins is perverse and relevant evidence has not been considered. we are unable to agree with the submission of the learned counsel. the authorities below have dealt with the evidence and have found that the version taken by the petitioner is an after thought. the finding is based on confession of the petitioner. after weighing the material and evidence on record it has been found that the defence taken by the petitioner is not believable and is an afterthought. in our opinion finding cannot be said to be perverse and is not liable to be interfered with under our extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution of india.4. as regards the confiscation of four patties, suffice it to say that this point has not been agitated before the revisional authority. counsel for the petitioner submitted that the point was argued before the revisional authority. if that be so, it would be open to the petitioner to approach the revisional authority for seeking review.5. with the above observations, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.