TMI Blog1954 (5) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent No. 3, armed with a search warrant from the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, Respondent No. 4, searched the residential room of the petitioner, situated at No. 32, Sir Hariram Goenka Street, Calcutta, and after a minute search of the steel almirah in which according to the statement of the petitioner, he used to keep his stock in trade and finding none there questioned him as to where he had secreted the diamonds to which the reply given by him was in the negative. Thereupon a wall almirah, wherein washed clothes, and other articles were stored, was searched and therein in an old jacket 475 pieces of diamonds were discovered along with one piece of synthetic stone. A statement signed by him was taken from which we find that his explanation for the possession was that ₹ 10,000/- worth of diamonds were received by him from M/s. Ratilal Amritlal, of 89 Zaveri Bazar, Bombay, and the rest were purchased locally in Calcutta. He did not remember the names and address of the parties from whom the local purchases were made, nor did he have in his possession any documents covering the purchase. Thereafter the Rummaging Inspector escorted the petitioner to the Customs House ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Advocates informing them that the diamonds in question were seized on reasonable suspicions that the same had been imported into India illegally and as such were liable to seizure under the Sea Customs Act. Further correspondence followed by a letter dated June 20, 1955, to which there was a reply on June 25, 1955, wherein there was a detailed reference to everything that had taken place till then and especially with regard to the earlier denial of the petitioner about there being any diamonds with him and the discovery of the same later on in a used jacket in a wall almirah. This is a comprehensive letter containing the justification for the proceedings taken by the search officers and finally the Assistant Collector observed that if the petitioner failed to submit a written explanation in time or did not appear before him when the case was fixed for hearing, the case would have to be decided on the basis of the evidence on the record without any further notice; On July 1, 1955, Messrs. S. K. Sawday Company wrote a further letter on behalf of the petitioner reiterating their objections and showing why action should not be taken. This was followed by letters dated July 4 and 20, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d be necessary. Section 19 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, enables the Central Government by notification in the official Gazette to prohibit or restrict importation or exportation of goods into or out of India, and s. 20 enumerates the dutiable goods. When any person imports goods into India, the owner of such goods is required, after the delivery of the manifest by the master of the vessel in which they are imported, to make an entry of the goods for home consumption or warehousing by delivering to the Customs-collector a bill of entry containing particulars which shall correspond with the particulars given of the same goods in the manifest of the ship (s. 86). This is intended to give an idea to the Customs collector as to whether what the owner claims is different or the same as what the master of the vessel has intimated by the delivery of the manifest. On the delivery of such a bill, if any duty is payable on such goods, the same shall be assessed and it is only after payment of the duty so assessed that the owner may proceed to clear the same (s. 87). Clearance of the goods after the payment of such duty is provided in s. 89 and if everything has been done according to la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which any person about to be searched may require the said officer to take him, previous to search, before the nearest Magistrate or Customs- collector. The important factor in this case is that the person making the search or attempting to do it must have a reason to believe that such person has dutiable or prohibited goods. These two sections refer to the time at which a person brings dutiable goods into India but the later provisions of the Chapter lay down the procedure to be followed where goods have been smuggled without being detected at the port or the wharf. Power to issue search warrants is given to any Magistrate under S. 172 which is to the following effect: Any Magistrate may, on application by a Customs-collector, stating his belief that dutiable or prohibited goods (or any documents relating to such goods) are secreted in any place within the local limits of the jurisdiction of such Magistrate, issue a warrant to search for such goods (or documents). Such warrant shall be executed in the same way, and shall have the same effect, as a search-warrant issued under the law relating to Criminal Procedure. The warrant, as will be noticed, may be issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovisions above made shows that successive remedies are provided to an aggrieved person from whom articles have been seized and confiscated and the Act is a complete Code in itself affording redress and relief in case of illegal or unjustified orders. The genesis of s. 178-A may now be considered. The Central Government had appointed a commission known as the Taxation Enquiry Commission which by its report recommended the adoption of the principles underlying s. 178-A in order to minimize smuggling. In Vol. II of their report, Chapter VII deals with administrative problems in regard to customs and Excise duties. At pp. 320 and 321 the Committee recommends the amendment of the Sea Customs Act, firstly to make smuggling a criminal offence and secondly empowering Customs officers to search premises etc. and the third recommendation is the one with which we are concerned. It is in the following terms: To transfer the onus of proof in respect of offences relating to smuggling to the person in whose possession any dutiable, restricted or prohibited goods are found. It is to implement this recommendation that s. 178-A has been enacted. Section 178-A applies to diamon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vy burden to be laid upon the shoulders of an innocent purchaser who might have come into possession after the article has changed many hands and this, it is alleged, invokes discrimination between him and other litigants and deprives him of the equal protection of the law guaranteed by Art. 14 of the Constitution. A large number of cases have been cited at the Bar in support of the respective contentions of the parties. The true nature, scope and effect of Art. 14 of the Constitution have been explained by different constitutional Benches of this Court in a number of cases, namely, Chiranjit Lal Chowdhury v. The Union of India and Others([1950] S.C.R. 869,), The State of Bombay and Another v. F. N. Balsara([1951] S.C.R. 682.), The State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar([1952] S.C.R. 284.), Kathi Raning Rawat v. The State of Saurashtra( [1952] S.C.R. 435.), Lachmandas-Kewalram Ahua and another v. The State of Bombay ([1952] S.C.R. 710.), Syed Qasim Razvi v. The State of Hyderabad and Others([1953] S.C.R. 591.) , Habeeb Mohammad v. The State of Hyderabad([1953] S.C.R. 661.) and V. M. Syed Mohammed and Company v. The State of Andhra( [1954] S.C. R. 117.), but it will not be ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ursory perusal of s. 178-A will at once disclose the well defined classification of goods based on an intelligible differentia. It applies only to certain goods described in sub-s. (2) which are or can be easily smuggled. The, section applies only to those goods of the specified kind which have been seized under the Act and in the reasonable belief that they are smuggled goods. It is only those goods which answer the threefold description that come under the operation of the section. The object of the Act is to prevent smuggling. The differentia on the basis. of which the goods have been classified and the presumption raised by the section obviously have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Act. The presumption only attaches to goods of the description mentioned in the section and it directly furthers the object of the Act, namely, the prevention of smuggling, and that being the position the impugned section is clearly within the principle enunciated above, not hit by Art. 14. The impugned section cannot be struck down on the infirmity either of discrimination or illegal classification. Confining as it does to certain classes of goods seized by the cu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
