TMI Blog1967 (1) TMI 39X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n and apply it to a situation arising under Section 105 of the Act. It is not necessary in this case to particularize which of the other clauses or part of the clauses of that section can be applied to a search under Section 105 of the Act. We, therefore, reject this contention also. It is clear that not only a policy is laid down in Section 105, but also that the acts of the Assistant Collector are effectively controlled in the manner stated above. We cannot, therefore, say that Section 105 offends Article 14 of the Constitution. Appeal dismissed. - 998 of 1965 - - - Dated:- 5-1-1967 - Chief Justice Mr. K. Subba Rao, Mr. Justice J.C. Shah, Mr. Justice S.M. Sikri, Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami, Mr. Justice C.A. Vaidialingam [Judgment per : Subba Rao, C.J.]. - This appeal by certificate raises the question whether the search of the premises of the appellant and the seizure of the articles and the documents found therein was valid. 2. The relevant facts are as follows : The appellant is a mining proprietor and holds several manganese mines in different States. He has also been doing business in many articles apart from being an exporter of manganese ore. On information alleg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had reason to believe so. 6. The relevant part of the authorization reads thus : "Whereas information has been laid before me of the suspected commission of offence under Section 11 read with Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) and it has been made to appear that the production of contraband goods and documents relating thereto are essential to the enquiry about to be made in the suspected offence........" Though the words "reason to believe" are not in terms embodied in the authorization, the phraseology used in effect and substance meant the same thing. 7. The next contention is that on a reasonable construction of the said provision it should be held that the Assistant Collector of Customs should not only give reason for his belief but also the particulars of the nature of the goods and of the documents, for, if the reasons and the particulars are not given, the officer authorized may make a roving search of the house which is not in the contemplation of the said section. This argument may be dealt within two parts. In terms Section 105 of the Act does not say that the Assistant Collector shall give reasons. The power conferred on him under Section 105 is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntroversial expression in Section 2(34) is "by the Board or the Collector of Customs". The clause "who is assigned those functions", the argument proceeds, refers only to the Board and not to the Collector. A fair reading of the provision, in our view, is that the preposition "by" refers both to the Board and the Collector. Both the board and the Collector of Customs can assign functions to an officer of Customs. 9. It is then contended that the search made was void inasmuch as in making the search the relevant provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure had not been complied with. This argument is based upon Section 105(2) of the Act. It reads : "The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, relating to searches shall, so far as may be, apply to searches under this section subject to the modification that sub-section (5) of Section 165 of the said Code shall have effect as if for the word "Magistrate" wherever it occurs, the words `Collector of Customs' were substituted." Now, if we look at the Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 165 deals with searches. The relevant part of that section reads : (1) Whenever an officer in charge of a police-station or a police-offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Criminal Procedure the recording of the reasons for believing the facts is only to enable him to make a search urgently in a case where search warrants in the ordinary course cannot be obtained. It is, therefore, not possible to invoke that condition and apply it to a situation arising under Section 105 of the Act. It is not necessary in this case to particularize which of the other clauses or part of the clauses of that section can be applied to a search under Section 105 of the Act. We, therefore, reject this contention also. 10. Then it is contended that Section 105 of the Act confers an unguided and arbitrary power on the Assistant Collector of customs to make a search, the only condition being that he has reason to believe in the existence of the facts mentioned therein. It is said that the said belief is practically a subjective satisfaction and the section neither lays down any policy nor imposes any effective control on his absolute discretion. So stated the argument is attractive, but a deeper scrutiny of the provisions indicates not only a policy but also effective checks on the exercise of the power to search by the Assistant Collector of Customs. The object of the se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
