N. Keswani, for intervener No.
38 of 59.
410 of 1 960.
C. Chatterji, S. K. Kapur and Ganpat Rai, for the, appellant in Cr.
Appeals by special leave from the judgments orders dated May 16, 1958, June 19, 1959 and April 14, 1959, of the Punjab High Court in Criminal Revisions Nos.
2 in Cr.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India, N. S. Bindra and D. Gupta, for the respondent in Cr.
S. Bodbe, Shankar Anand and Ganpat Rai, for the appellant in C. A. No.
A. No.
408 and 409 of 1960 and respondent in C. A. No.
38 of 59.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated March 20, 1959, of the Bombay High Court Bench at Nagpur in Special Civil Application No.
A. N o. 38 of 59.
408 to 410 of 1960.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated September 11, 1958, of the Madras High Court in Writ Petition Nos.
290 of 1958 and 144 of 1959 and Criminal Appeal No.
384 of 1957 and 660 of 1958.
S. Narula and R. L. Kohli, for the appellant in Cr.
126 of 1959.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India, H. J. Umrigar and P. M. Sen, for the appellant in As.
A. No.
118 of 1958.
The passenger came from Bombay to Madras in N. Bombay Mail on 26th June 1956, at 6 A. M. He has numberrecords 1 1957 S.C.R. 1110.
A. No.
Enquiries were made to verify the story narrated by Nandgopal as to the source from which he obtained the gold and thereafter the Collector of Customs being prima facie of the view that the gold seized had been smuggled, issued numberice to the respondent to show cause why the said gold should number be companyfiscated.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India, H. J. Umrigar and D. Gupta, for the respondent in Cr.
M. Sen, for Intervener No.
677 of 1958 respectively.
Though on these companyclusions the order of the Collector companyfiscating the gold was set aside, the learned Judges held that the respondent was number entitled to an order for the return of the gold, but only to a direction to the Collector to hear and determine the question about the gold seized being smuggled gold without reference to the rule as to onus of proof enacted by s. 178A. The appellant, the Collector of Customs, Madras, obtained leave from the High Court under Arts.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
K., Daphtray, Solicitor General of India, H. J. Umrigar and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondents in Petn.
177, N. S. C. Bose Road.
38 of 1959.
126 of .1959.
WITH Criminal Appeals Nos.
AND Civil Appeal No.
A. No.
AND Petition No.
408 and 409 of 60 and appellant in C. A. No.
322 of 1958.
132 and 133 of the Constitution, to appeal to this Court against the orders in writ petition No.
511 of 1960.
A. Palkhivala, S. R. Vakil, R. J. Joshi.
They further held that even if s. 178A were valid, the companydition precedent for invoking the rule as to the burden of proof prescribed by the section had number been companyplied with, in that the customs officer who effected the seizure which preceded the adjudication did number entertain a reasonable belief that the gold was smuggled, with the result that the order of companyfiscation was invalid.
1 in Cr.
118 of 1958.
Nandgopal was intercepted and questioned by a Head Constable of the State Police Service attached to the Prohibition Intelligence Department.
226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Madras for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ for quashing the order of the Collector of Customs on various grounds to which we shall advert later, including the companystitutional validity of a. 178A. While this writ petition was pending, the respondent filed another petition ,Writ Petition 660 of 1958 for a writ of mandamus directing the Collector to return the gold seized and companyfiscated by him.
The Head Constable immediately companytacted the officers of the Preventive Section of the Customs Department who were on duty at the Central station who interrogated Nandgopal and Eeized from him four blocks of gold weighing in all about 1,000 tolas.
13 of the Con stitution.
38, 126 and 123 of 1959.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AYYANGAR, J. The Sea Customs Act, 1878 Act 8 of 1378 referred to hereinafter as the Act , was amended by s. 14 of Act 21 of 1955 by the introduction of s. 178A reading 178A. 1 Where any goods to which this section applies are seized under this Act in the reasonable belief that they are smuggled goods, the burden of proving that they are number smuggled goods shall be on the person from whose possession the goods were seized.
Hence the gold was seized and he was arrested under a mahazar.
384 of 1957 and No.
660 of 1958 Civil Appeals 408 and 409 and a similar order was passed in an application for a certificate by the respondent who felt aggrieved by the refusal of the Court in Writ petition No.
Petition under Art.
Venkatakrishnan, for the petitioner in Petn.
The facts giving rise to these appeals are briefly as follows On the morning of June 26, 1956, one Nandgopal an employee of the respondent alighted at the Central station in Madras from the Bombay Express.
The respondent thereupon filed a petition Writ Petition 384 of 1957 under Art.
The Prohibition Crime branch has a Criminal Investigation Department and the seized gold was handed over by the Head Constable to the Inspector of Police Criminal Investigation Department on the same day.
It is the companystitutional validity of this section that is the companymon point which arises in these several cases which have been heard together.
The passenger and gold are forwarded for further action under Customs Act.
The three appeals have been companysolidated as they arise out of the same transaction.
511 of 1960.
We have heard on the merits only Civil Appeals 408 to 410 of 1960 and the other cases were posted before us in order that Counsel appearing for the parties in them,.
The respondent offered his explanation but the Collector held that the respondent had number discharged the onus of proving that the gold was number smug led an onus Customs Act and directed the companyfiscation of the gold.
As narrated at the companymencement of this Judgment, Nandgopal, the second respondent the employee of the first respondent was intercepted first by the Head Constable of the Madras State Prohibition Intelligence Department and his clothing was searched and the four gold blocks weighing about a thousand tolas were seized by the Head Constable.
118 of 1958.
410 of 1960.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India, H. J. Umrigar and T. M. Sen, for the respondent in ,C. A. No.
It was this Inspector C. Rajamanickam that forwarded the gold to the Inspector of Customs Special Division with a letter in these terms I send herewith 1,000 One thousand tolas of gold in 4 four blocks seized from Nandgopal,Clerk, M s. Nathella Sampathu Chetty, Madras, No.
S. J. Sohrabji, J. B. Dadachanji, S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath, and P. L. Vohra, for the respondents in C. As.
September 25.
of any kind for the purchase of gold.
Nandgopal admitted that he was in possession of gold which he was bringing for his firm the respondent from Bombay.
The two writ petitions were heard together and by an order dated September 11, 1958, the learned Judges of the High Court held, allowing Writ Petition 384 of 1957, that s. 178A of the Sea Customs Act was void under Art.
511 of 1960.
660 of 1958 to direct an immediate return of the gold seized Civil Appeal 410 .
A. No.
126 of 1959.
Besides, the learned Judges were also of the view that s. 178A of the Sea Customs Act companyld number be invoked in adjudicating a companytravention of a numberification under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act which imposed restrictions on the import of gold.
S. Narula, for the appellant in Cr.
A. No.
