Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
K.Sahai and K.K.Dutta JJ.
Jhaman Mian
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Appeal No. 210 of 1963 ;
Decided On : JANUARY 31, 1966
CRIMINAL LAW - Smuggling - Land Customs Act, 1924 - Sea Customs Act, 1878 - Imports and Exports (Control) Act (XVIII of 1947) - Applicability to Santal Parganas - Central Excise Inspector - Power to arrest and seize - Legality of arrest and seizure - Conviction for rioting, assault, and theft upheld.
Fact of the Case:
Four appellants were convicted of various offenses, including rioting, assault, and theft, in connection with a smuggling incident. The appellants challenged the legality of their arrest and seizure of smuggled cloves by a Central Excise Inspector, arguing that the relevant laws did not apply to the Santal Parganas region where the incident occurred.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the relevant laws, including the Land Customs Act, 1924, the Sea Customs Act, 1878, and the Imports and Exports (Control) Act (XVIII of 1947), were applicable to the Santal Parganas region. The court found that the Central Excise Inspector had the authority to arrest the appellants and seize the smuggled cloves. The court upheld the appellants' convictions for rioting, assault, and theft.
Issues: 1. Whether the relevant laws, including the Land Customs Act, 1924, the Sea Customs Act, 1878, and the Imports and Exports (Control) Act (XVIII of 1947), were applicable to the Santal Parganas region. 2. Whether the Central Excise Inspector had the authority to arrest the appellants and seize the smuggled cloves.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the relevant laws were applicable to the Santal Parganas region based on the following factors: a) The Government of India Act, 1935, which previously restricted the applicability of laws to the Santal Parganas region, had been repealed by the Constitution of India. b) The Constitution of India, through Article 372 (1), continued the applicability of existing laws until they were altered, repealed, or amended by a competent authority. c) The Parliament of India had exclusive power to make laws for the whole of India, including the Santal Parganas region, under Articles 146 and 246 of the Constitution. d) The Land Customs Act, 1924, though not expressly mentioned in the Constitution, was held to be applicable to the Santal Parganas region based on the definition of "Central Act" in the General Clauses Act, 1897. 2. The court held that the Central Excise Inspector had the authority to arrest the appellants and seize the smuggled cloves based on the following provisions: a) Section 173 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, authorized the arrest of persons reasonably suspected of committing offenses under the Act. b) The appellants were reasonably suspected of committing an offense under the Act, as they were found in possession of a large quantity of cloves, which were chargeable with duty and subject to import restrictions. c) The Central Excise Inspector was an "officer of Customs" within the meaning of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, as per notifications issued by the Central Board of Revenue and the Ministry of Finance.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appellants' appeal, upholding their convictions for rioting, assault, and theft. However, the court set aside the convictions and sentences imposed under Section 332 of the Penal Code against two of the appellants, Nazir Mian and Gangadayal Sah, due to an error in the trial court's judgment.
Sahai, J.
1. The four appellants were placed upon their trial along with one Raghunath Prasad Yadav before the Assistant Sessions Judge of Dumka in the Santal Parganas. Raghunath Prasad Yadav has been acquitted. Appellant Nazir Mian was charged for offences under the Land Customs Act, 1924 , the Sea Customs Act, 1878, and the Imports and Exports (Control) Act (XVIII of 1947). The learned Assistant Sessions Judge has held that, in view of the special procedures provided in these Acts for taking cognizance of offences under them, he had no Jurisdiction to take cognizance of those offences or to try them. He, therefore, purports to have acquitted Nazir Mian of the charges for those offences, though it seems that what he calls acquittal really amounts to discharge.
2. Out of the appellants, Jhaman Mian Nazir Mian and Gangadayal Sah are residents of Kotal Pokhar within Barharwa Police Station, and Ramkripal Bhagat is a resident of Barharwa. These places are under Pakur Sub-division within the Santal Parganas.
3. All the four appellants have been convicted under Sec.147 of the Penal Code, and each of them has been sentenced under that section to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. All of them have been further convicted under Section 332 of the Penal Code, and each of them has been sentenced under that section to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. This appears to be due to a mistake because, in Para. 46 of his judgment, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge has found only Jhaman Mian and Ramkripal Bhagat guilty of the offence under this section, and has convicted them of that charge. That means that he has acquitted Gangadayal Sah and Nazir Mian of this offence. When, therefore, he has convicted and sentenced these two appellants in the final part of his order, he has obviously done so by Inadvertence. Jhaman, Ramkripal and Gangadayal have also been convicted under Sec.225 of the Penal Code, and each of these three appellants has been sentenced under that section to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and a half years. Jhaman has been further convicted under Sec.333, ana has been sentenced under that section to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. Ramkripal and Nazir Mian have been further convicted under Sec.379, and each of these two appellants has been sentenced under that section to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. All these sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. There was a charge under Sec.333 read with Sec.149 of the Penal Code against all the four appellants; but they have been acquitted of that charge.
4. Shri Uma Shankar (P. W. 1) was posted on the relevant date at Barharwa as Inspector of Central Excise and Customs, and he worked in the preventive and intelligence sections. His main duty was to prevent smuggling of contraband commodities and collection of intelligence. Shri B.N. Jha (P. W. 3) was also posted as Inspector of Central Excise at Barharwa, and was attached to the preventive and intelligence sections. The areas of Pakur, Sahebganj ana Dumka Sub-divisions were within their jurisdiction. Constable Bishun Singh (P. W. 4) was also posted at Barharwa as Central Excise constable.
5. The prosecution case is that all the above-mentioned three witnesses proceeded on the 13th December 1961, by 330 Down Barauni passenger from Barharwa to Pakur side in one of their usual journeys on checking duty. When they reached Pakur Railway Station, Bishun Singh (P. W. 4) informed Uma Shanker that there were two bags of contraband cloves in the latrine of the compartment which was next to the railway engine. All the three witnesses (P. Ws. 1, 3 and 4) entered that compartment and found the door of the latrine closed. Uma Shankar gave a push, whereupon it was opened from inside. The witnesses then found two bags of cloves and Nazir Mian in the latrine. The cloves weighed approximately 2 maunds 10 seers. Uma Shankar disclosed his identity to Nazir Mian, and questioned him as to w
AI
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
