1961 (9) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT

Whether Section 178A is obnoxious to the rights guaranteed by Article 19(1)(f) and (g)?

Held that:- Section 178A was constitutionally valid

The rule as to the burden of proof enacted by that section applies to a contravention of a notification under Section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, by virtue of its being deemed to be a contravention of a notification under Section 19 of the Sea Customs Act.

The preliminary requirement of Section 178A that the officer seizing should entertain “a reasonable belief that the goods seized were smuggled” was satisfied in the present case. The result therefore is that the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by the respondent before the High Court should have been dismissed. We accordingly allow appeals 408 and 409 with costs throughout (one set of hearing fees), the writ petitions filed by the respondent being directed to be dismissed.