The mere possession of smuggled goods is not sufficient to conclude that the person is concerned in the illegal importation of the goods. Other circumstances indicating that the person had some connection with the importation of the goods prior to their actual import have to be established.

Judgment

RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J. :

A number of gold, bars, held to be smuggled gold, were recovered from the person of the appellant on September 17, 1957, when he was going in a truck from Jaisalmer to Pokaran. The Superintendent of Land Customs issued a notice to the appellant on December 4, 1957, to show cause why penal action be not taken against him and as to why the goods should not be confiscated under S.167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, 1978 (Act VIII of 1878), hereinafter called the Act. The appellant showed cause and on March 21, 1959, the Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs, hereinafter shortly termed Collector, order the confiscation of the gold seized from the person of the appellant and imposition of a penalty of Rs. 15,000/ - on him under S. 167(8) of the Act. The appellant presented a writ application under Art. 226 of the Constitution to the High Court of Punjab praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Collector dated March 21, 1959 and for the issue of a writ mandamus directing the respondent not to take any setps against him, for the realisation of the amount of penalty.

2. The writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the Collector had not recorded a finding that the appellant was concerned in the act of smuggling gold into the country in view of the decision of the Division Bench of the Punjab High Court in Balbir Singh v. Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs. New Delhi, AIR 1960 Punj 488. On letters patent appeal, the appellate Bench set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the writ petition. The appellate Bench relied on the Full Bench decision of the Punjab High Court in Union of India v. Jagdish Singh, ILR (1962) 1 Punj 369. It was held in that case that it was not necessary for the Collector of Customs to record a formal finding to the effect that the person proceeded against was concerned in the importing of the smuggled gold. The appellant then perferred this appeal, after obtaining special leave from this Court.

3. Mr. Sharma, for the appellant, does not question the finding that the gold was recovered from the person of the appellant as alleged or that the gold recovered was smuggled gold. His contention is that these findings, by themselves, do not justify the conclusion to the effect that. the appellant was concerned in committing the offence of importing gold illegally. His further contention is that the Collector did not record any finding to the effect that the appellant was concerned in such importation of the gold. It is therefore urged that the Collector was not competent to impost the penalty on the appellant.

4. Mr. Prem, for the respondent, has urged, that on these facts the appellant must be held to be interested in the importation, of the smuggled gold and that the word concerned in S. 167(8) of the Act be construed in the light of the policy of the Act and the difficulties in establishing the fact of a person found in possession of smuggled gold being actually concerned in the importing of it illegally.

The relevant portion of S. 167(8) reads :

"The offences mentioned in the first column of the following schedule shall be punishable of the same with reference to such offences respectively :-

(Column 1) (Column 3)

Offences Penalties

8. If any goods, the importation or exportation of which is for the time being prohibited or restricted by or under Ch.IV of this Act, be imported into or exported from India contrary to such prohibition or restriction, or Such goods shall be liable to confiscation; and

if any attempt be made so to import or export any such goods, or any person concerned in any such offence shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding three times the value of the goods, or not exceeding one thousand rupees.

if any suh goods be found in any package produced to any officer of Customs as containing no such goods or if......

The question is, who can be laid to be concerned in any such offence