Judgement

SUBBA RAO, CJI. : 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 alleged to have been received to the effect that the appellant was in possession of a large quantity of undeclared gold, the Assistant Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Raipur, issued an authorization under R. 126(L) (2) of the Defence of India (Amendment) Rules, 1963 (Gold Control Rules), hereinafter called the Rules, for searching the premises of the appellant. Pursuant to that authorization, the appellant s premises were searched and as a result of the search gold and other articles, foreign currency and other documents were seized. The appellant filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) challenging the validity of the said search and the seizure of the articles and documents belonging to him. The petition was heard along with similar petitions filed by other persons whose premises were likewise searched and goods and documents seized therefrom. The High Court dismissed all the petitions. The several petitioners before the High Court, along with the appellant, preferred appeals to this Court and the appeals other than that filed by the appellant were heard by this Court : see Durga Prasad v. H. R. Gomes Superintendent (Prevention), Central Excise, Nagpur, AIR 1966 SC 1209. Therein this Court considered the various contentions raised by them and dismissed the same. For one reason or other, this appeal was not heard along with them.

3. Obviously the points covered by that judgment cannot be permitted to be reagitated in this appeal. Accepting that position, learned counsel for the appellant raised before us only the questions that were not decided by the said judgment. We shall now proceed to consider the questions that are peculiar to this appeal.

4. The contention that the Assistant Collector and the officer authorized by him to make the search acted with mala fides has no substance. The High Court considered the evidence and rejected it. We do not see any justification to take a different view on the material placed before us.

5. The second contention is that under S. 105 of the Customs Act, hereinafter called the Act the Assistant Collector shall have reason to believe that some goods are secreted before he can authorize any officer of Customs to search for them or the relevant documents, but the authorization given by the Assistant Collector to the Customs Officer did not say that he 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 S. 11 read with S. 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 reasons 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 with in two parts. In terms S. 105 of the Act does not say that the Assistant Collector shall give reasons. The power conferred on him under S. 105 is no