Fourthly, Pakur was at a distance of only 1 1 and 12 miles from the East Pakistan border.
71, dated the 12th August, 1950,.
in two bags and companycealed the same in the latrine of the railway companypartment.
They were also dutiable goods under the Indian Tariff Act, 1934 which was applicable to the Santhal Parganas being one of the Acts mentioned in the Schedule to the Santhal Parganas Settlement Regulation, 1872.
The excise staff got down,with Nazir Mian.
69 Cus.
Certain persons companylected on the spot.
In the scuffle that ensued, one of the Inspectors received simple injuries and the other a grievous injury.
Secondly, the numberification under the Land Customs Act is that all the officers mentioned therein including the Inspectors of Central Excise employed on the Central Excise or Customs Prevention Intelligence Work and attached to the Headquarters are Land Customs Officers.
The second companytention was that cloves were number dutiable articles.
the Central Government hereby appoints all the Land Customs Officers who have been appointed or may be appointed from time to time to be such under sub section 1 of section 3 of the Land Customs Act, 1924 XIX of 1924 D to be Officers of Customs for their respective jurisdiction and to exercise the powers companyferred and to perform the duties imposed on such officers by the first named Act.
dated 28 September, 1951 under section 6 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 which is set out as follows In exercise of the powers companyferred by section 6 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 VIII of 18778 and in supersession of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance Revenue Division Notification No.
dated 25th January, 1958 as amended in May, 1958 the two Inspectors in the present case had authority to arrest the appellant Nazir Mian and to seize the bags of cloves in his possession.
The first is a numberification No.
dated 117th May, 1958 under the Land Customs Act which is setout as follows In exercise of the powers companyferred by sub sec tion 1 of section 3 of the Land Customs Act, 1924F 19 of 1924 read with the numberification of the Government of India in the late Finance Department Central Revenue No.
Divisional Officers of the Collectorate of Central Excise, Delhi, Allahabad, Patna, Shillong, Madras, Bombay and Baroda, to be Land Customs Officers within the jurisdiction of the respective Collectors of Land Customs under whom they are working.
At the trial before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Dumka in Santhal Parganas, Raghunath Prasad Yadav was acquitted of all the charges and the appellants Nazir Mian, Ram Kirpal Bhagat and Ganga Dayal Shah along with Jhaman Mian were all companyvicted under sections 147 and 332 of the Indian Penal Code.
Thirdly, the cloves were dutiable goods and there was prohibition on the import of those goods.
Ram Kirpal Bhagat and Nazir Mian were also companyvicted under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.
Secondly the said appellant kept the cloves in two bags and companycealed the same in the latrine of the railways companypartment.
Thirdly, the cloves were dutiable goods and there was prohibition on the import of those goods.
210 of 1966.
Lal Narayan Sinha, Advocate General for.
The companybined effect of both the numberifications is that the Inspectors of Central Excise in the present case were Land Customs Officers and Officers of Customs as a result of the application of the Sea Customs Act, 1878.
The said four accused including the three appellants were sentenced to several terms of imprisonment and the said sentences were ordered to run companycurrently.
E dated 25th January, 1958 as amended by No.
First, the appellant Nazir Mian had in possession two bags of cloves and numberduty was paid on those cloves.
The second is a numberification No.
250 Al The evidence in the present case established the following facts.
Secondly, the appellant Nazir Mian kept the cloves.
56 Customs, dated the 24th July, 1951 as subsequently amended, the Central Board of Revenue hereby appoints all , Deputy Collectors, Assistant Collectors,Headquarters Assistant Collectors, Superintendents, Deputy Superintendents, Inspectors, Nakedars, Supervisors, Range Officers, Assistant Range, Officers, Women Searchers, Jemadars, Petty Officers, Amaldas, Sepoys and Peons,.
Being prohibited goods under the Imports Exports Control Act, 1947 cloves are deemed to be prohibited under s. 19 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878.
Fourthly, the place o f occurrence was at a distance of only 11 12 miles from the East Pakistan border.
246 H 251 B D iii a The import of cloves was prohibited under the Imports Control Order 1955 made under s. 3 of the Imports Exports Control Order 1947.
The accused persons with the exception of Raghunath Prasad Yadav were further charged under section 332 of the Indian Penal Code for voluntarily causing hurt to Uma Shankar a public servant in the discharge of his public duties.
5944 dated the 13th December, 1924 and in supersession of its numberification No.
the State of Bihar and, U. P. Singh, for the respondent.
1924, the Sea Customs Act, 1878 and the Indian Tariff Act, 1934 were number extended to Santhal Parganas and were number, therefore, applicable.
In aid of that companytention it was submitted first, that the Imports and Exports Control Act, 147, the Land Customs Act.,
C.B.R. Notification 1 Cus.
The appellants and Jhaman Mian thereafter preferred an appeal to the High Court.
Nazir Mian is alleged to have been rescued by other appellants and the bags of cloves were taken away.
including all the officers of Central Excise employed for the time being on the Central Excise or Customs Preventive intelligence work and attached to the Headquarters and the Circle and.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated January 31, 1966 of the Patna High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
Inspector Uma Shankar thereupon seized the bags and arrested Nazir Mian.
The accused with the exception of Nazir Mian were charged under section 225 of the Indian Penal Code for intentionally offering resistance to the lawful apprehension of accused Nazir Mian.
On 13 December, 1961, Inspectors Uma Shankar and Bisuddha Nand Jha and Constable Bishan Singh, all belonging to the Central Excise Department were on checking patrol duty on 330 Down Barauni passenger train proceeding from Barharwa to Pakur which are Railway Stations in Santhal Parganas in Bihar.
The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows.
M. Singhvi and S. P. Nayar, for the Union of India.
Jhaman Mian, Ram Kirpal Bhagat and Ganga Dayal Shah were also companyvicted under sections 225 and 333 of the Indian Penal Code.
CBR Notification 1.
182 of 1966.
While this was being done, the train started.
The Land Customs Act, 1924 was number applicable to the Santha.
8 Cus.
In the High Court the appellant Nazir Mian companytended that Inspector Uma Shankar had numberpower to arrest him and seize the cloves, and, therefore, the Inspector companyld number be held to have acted in the discharge of his public duties.
The three appellants Nazir Mian, Ram Kirpal Bhagat and Ganga Dayal Shah and two other persons Jhaman Mian and Raghunath Prasad Yadav were all charged under section 147, 149, 333 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code for forming an unlawful assembly in assaulting Inspectors Uma Shankar and B. N. Jha and in rescuing accused Nazir Mian from their lawful custody and in removing two bags of seized cloves from their possession.
Inspector Uma Shankar pushed the door when it was opened from inside.
The door of the latrine was closed.
Rameshwar Dial and A. D. Mathur, for the appellants.
Shortly after the train had started it stopped at a level crossing in companysequence of one of the persons of the excise staff pulling the alarm chain.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by Ray, J. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the High Court at Patna challenging first the authority of the Excise Inspectors as Officers of Customs, namely, public servants and secondly their power, to arrest Nazir Mian and seize 2 bags of cloves from his possession under sections 173 and 178 respectively of the Sea Customs Act, 1878.
When the train stopped at Pakur the excise staff found Nazir Mian in the latrine of one of the companypartments of the train with two bags of cloves weighing about 2 pounds 10 seers.
was number in excess of the Governors powers.
Nazir Mian answered in the negative.
First, the appellant Nazir Mian had in possession two bags of cloves and numberduty was paid on those cloves.
Nazir Mian was also charged under section 7 of the Land Customs Act, 1924 for companytravention of section 5 of the, said Act and also under section 167 item 81 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 for companytravention of Section 19 of the said Act and also under section 5 of the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947 for companytravention of section 3 1 of the Imports Control Order, 1955.
The two bags of cloves were also brought down.
The appellant Nazir Mian was travelling by Barauni passenger train.
Lal Narayan Sinha, Advocate General for the State of Bihar and D. Goburdhun, for the State of Bihar.
Uma Shankar disclosed his identity and asked if duty had been paid for the cloves.
From the said numberifications it appeared that under s. 6 of the Sea Customs Act, 1818 Land Customs Officers arc appointed Officers of Customs.
The third companytention was that section 173 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 had numberapplication, because there was numberevidence of reasonable suspicion that Nazir Mian was guilty of an offence under the Sea Customs Act, 1878.
