Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.H. BEG AND R.S. SARKARIA, JJ.
Collector of Customs, Madras and others, Appellant
Versus
D. Bhoormull, Responent.
Civil Appeal No. 1142 of 1973, D/- 3-4-1974.
Held, that a proceeding for confiscation of contraband goods are proceedings in rem and the penalty for confiscation under the Ist Part of the entry in column 3 of clause 8 of the schedule is enforced against the goods irrespective of whether the offender is known or unknown. But the imposition of the other kind of penalty under the second part of the entry in column 3, is one in personam, such a penalty can be levied only on the person concerned in any offence described in column 1 of the clause. (Para 21)
Goods found to be smuggled can, therefore be confiscated without proceeding against any person and without ascertaining who is their real owner or who was actually concerned in their illicit import. (Para 22)
With regard to the goods specified in Section 178 (A) if seized under the Act in the belief that they are smuggled goods, the burden of proof that they are not such goods shall be on the person from whose possession they are seized.
But in proceedings to which Section 178 (A) does not apply, the burden of proving that the goods are smuggled, is on the department. The Department however is not required to prove its case with mathematical precision to a demonstrable degree for in all human affairs absolute certainty is a myth, all exactness is a fake, absolute proof being unattainable, the law accepts for it, probability as a working substitute. The law does not require the prosecution to prove the impossible. All that is required is the establishment of such a degree of probability that a prudent man may on its basis believe in the existence of the fact in issue. Thus, legal proof is not necessarily perfect proof, often it is nothing more than prudent man's estimate as to the probabilities of the case. (Para 28)
Smuggling is a clandestine conveying of goods to avoid legal duties. Secrecy and stealth being its covering guard, it is impossible for the preventive Department to unravel every link of the process. Many facts relating to his illicit business remain in the special or peculiar knowledge of the person concerned in it. On the principle underlying Section 106 Evidence Act, the burden to establish those facts is cast on the person concerned, and if he fails to establish or explain those facts, an adverse inference of fact may arise against him which coupled with the presumptive evidence adduced by the prosecution or the Department would rebut the initial presumption of innocence in favour of that person and in the result prove him guilty. (Para 30)
Constitution of India, Art, 226-Collector of customs drawing inference from the circumstances that the goods were smuggled goods - High Court whether can weigh the evidence or consider its sufficiency.
Held, that weighing the evidence or considering its sufficiency was the business of the Collector or the appellate authority. Even if the High Court felt that circumstances were not adequate enough to establish the smuggled character of the goods, beyond doubt, that was not a ground to justify interference under the writ jurisdiction. (Para 34)
Judgment
SARKARIA, J.:- This appeal by special leave arises out of the following facts:
On receiving information that some packages containing smuggled goods had been left by a person in the premises of M/s. Shah Rupaji Rikhabdas at 98, Narayana Mudali Lane, Madras-1 and that these packages were about to be despatched to Bangalore for disposal, a posse of Preventive Officers of the Customs House went to the said shop on June 4, 1962. They found ten packages in that ship. Baboothmull of M/s. Shah Rupaji Rikhabdas was present there. The officers questioned Baboothmull about those packages. Baboothmull replied that he was not the owner of those packages and that somebody next to his shop had left them outside the premises and since that person had not returned for a considerable time, he got them removed into the shop. Baboothmull was unable to throw any light with regard to the owners or the contents of the packages.
2. After getting a consent latter from Baboothmull, the officers opened the packages which contained these articles of the total value of Rs.12,255/-
1. Parker Fountain Pens (19 made in Canada) 28 Doz. Rs. 3,360-00
2. Master hair clippers made in Germany 5 Doz. Rs. 600-00
3. Oster Hair Clippers made in Germany 3 1/2 Doz. Rs. 400-00
4. Venus Pencils made in England 760 Doz. Rs. 2,250-00
5. K.55 Out Thread Razors made in Germany 68 Doz. Rs. 4,080-00
6. Nylon Buttons made in Japan 47 Gross. Rs. 705-00
7. Gillette Razor Blades made in England 1000 Pcs. Rs. 120-00
8. 7 O Clock Razor sets made in England 12 Doz. Rs. 730-00
Rs. 12,255-00
3. The Officers seized these goods under a mahzarnama.
4. On June 9, 1962, a letter was addressed by the said Baboothmull to the Collector Customs, informing that on that date, the owner of the packages, one Mr. D.Bhoormul turned up to claim the goods; that his other partner was absent at the time of the seizure of the goods who knew about this affair and that he had subsequently learnt from this partner that those goods belonged to D. Bhoormull who had left instructions for their storage in the shop. Subsequently the name of this partner was given as Indermal. The Customs Officer attempted to find out and contact this Inderpal but without success.
5. Eight days after the seizure, a letter dated June 12, 1962, was received by the Collector of Customs from one D. Bhoormull (Poonawala, temporarily at 98, Narayana Mudali Lane, Madras-1) claiming ownership of the goods. In this letter it was stated that he had purchased these goods on June 3, 1962, in the local market at Madras through brokers, that he was packing the same till late in the evening, and since he was forced to leave for Bangalore on the call for a friend immediately, he instructed one of the staff of Shah Rupaji Rikhabdas to keep the goods in their shop until his return. This letter of Bhoormull did not contain the names or the particulars of the brokers from whom the goods were allege purchased; nor did it refer to any bill, voucher or other document to support the allegation of their having been purchased locally in the normal course of business. On receipt of this letter, the Collector made an attempt to contact Bhoormull for further investigation. Bhoormull, however, could not be contacted as he had gone away to Poona which was said to be his normal place of activity.
6. Another letter, dated June 25, 1962, was received by the Collector from Bhoormull urging for release of his goods at an early date.
7. On July 3, 1962, a letter was received by the Collector from M/s. Gagrat & Co., Solicitors, Bombay on behalf of Bhoormull, requesting for disclosure of the grounds for the seizure of the goods, and for supply of the copies of the mahazarnama and other relevant documents relating to the seizure. It was reiterated that the goods had been bona fide purchased by Bhoormull in the course of business, and as such were not liable to seizure or confiscation. This was followed by another letter dated September 14, 1962 from M/s. Gagrat & Co.,
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
