Judgment

AYYANGAR, J. : The Sea Customs Act, 1878 (Act 8 of 1878) (referred to hereinafter as the Act) was amended by S. 14 of Central 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 not smuggled goods shall be on the person from whose possession the goods were seized.

2. This section shall apply to gold, gold manufactures, diamonds and other precious stones, cigarettes and cosmetics and any other goods which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, speedy in this behalf.

3. Every notification issued under sub-section (2) shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is issued."

2. It is the constitutional validity of this section that is the common point which arises in these several cases which have been heard together. 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, might have an opportunity to be heard upon the common question mentioned earlier. We shall, therefore, refer only to the facts of Civil Appeals 408 to 410 of 1960 in dealing with these petitions. Civil Appeals 408 to 410:

3. These appeals come before us on a certificate granted by the High Court of Madras under Arts. 132(1) and 133(1)(c) of the Constitution and are directed against the judgment and order of the High Court in two Writ Petitions filed before it by Nathella Sampathu Chetty-the sole proprietor of a business in gold and silver, bullion, jewellery etc., carried on in the name of Nathella Sampathu Chetty and Sons (referred to hereafter as the respondent).

4. 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. Nandgopal was intercepted and questioned by a Head Constable of the State Police Service attached to the Prohibition Intelligence Department. Nandgopal admitted that he was in possession of gold which he was bringing for his firm- the respondent - from Bombay. The Head Constable immediately contacted the officers of the Preventive Section of the Customs Department who were on duty at the Central station who interrogated Nandgopal and seized from him four blocks of gold weighing in all about 1,000 tolas. Enquiries were made to verify the story narrated by Nandgopal as to the source from which he obtained the gold and therefore the Collector of Customs being prima facie of the view that the gold seized had been smuggled, issued notice to the respondent to show cause why the said gold should not be confiscated. The respondent offered his explanation but the Collector held that the respondent had not discharged the onus of proving that the gold was not smuggled-an onus which had been cast on him by S. 178A of the Sea Customs Act and directed the confiscation of the gold. The respondent thereupon filed a petition (Writ Petition 384 of 1957) under Art. 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 constitutional validity of S. 178A.

5. 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 confiscated by him.

6. 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. 13 of the Constitution. They further held that even if S. 178A were valid, the condition precedent for invoking the rule as to