Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
P. B. CHAKRAVARTTI, K. C. DAS GUPTA
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS - Appellant
Versus
CALCUTTA MOTOR AND CYCLE CO. - Respondent
A. F. O. O. 12 Of 1956
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 19, 1958
CUSTOMS ACT - SECTION 171-A - NOTIFICATION - SEARCH AND SEIZURE - CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION - ARTICLE 20 (3) - VALIDITY OF NOTICES - SCOPE OF IMMUNITY.
Fact of the Case:
The Collector of Customs and four of his officials on one side and a firm called the Calcutta Motor and Cycle Company and its four partners on the other are both dissatisfied with an order of Sinha J. , dated the 9th August, 1955, whereby he quashed three notices issued by the Customs officials under Section 171-A (1) of the Sea Customs Act on the partners of the firm and at the same time held that a search of the premises of the firm and the seizure of certain prohibited goods thereat had been perfectly legal.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the search held by the Appellants and the seizure of goods and documents by them at the search had been perfectly legal and so was the notice requiring S. M. Jajodia to produce such evidence as he might have in his possession to show that the goods seized at the search had been legally imported. The Court, however, held that the remaining three notices were void, inasmuch as they were violative of the Constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination and accordingly directed the issue of a writ of certiorari, quashing the orders contained in them and also the issue of the writ of mandamus, requiring the Respondents to forbear from giving effect to them.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned notices issued under Section 171-A of the Sea Customs Act are violative of the Constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the search and seizure conducted by the Customs officials were legal and authorized under the provisions of the Sea Customs Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the impugned notices issued under Section 171-A of the Sea Customs Act are violative of the Constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India. The Court observed that the notices were issued to compel the Respondents to be witnesses against themselves, which is prohibited under Article 20 (3). The Court further held that Section 171-A of the Sea Customs Act, in so far as it enables the Customs authorities to compel a person accused of any offence to give evidence against himself or to produce documents for that purpose, is inconsistent with Article 20 (3) and consequently void. 2. The Court held that the search and seizure conducted by the Customs officials were legal and authorized under the provisions of the Sea Customs Act. The Court observed that the search warrants were issued over the signature of the Chief Presidency Magistrate and they state what information had been laid before him. It was stated by the Magistrate that information had been laid before him of illegal importation of goods in contravention of the Sea Customs Act, the Imports and Exports (Control) Act and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and it had been made to appear before him that production of the illicitly imported goods and the documents appertaining to them was essential to the enquiry to be made into the suspected offences.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the Customs officials was allowed and the order of the learned Judge quashing the orders contained in the notices dated, respectively, the 19th May, the 20th May and the 23rd May, 1955 and the order for a writ of mandamus, directing the Appellants to forbear from giving effect to them was set aside, subject to the reservation as to the right of the Respondents to claim the constitutional immunity if and when they think they are going to be subjected to self-incrimination. The Cross-objection filed by the firm was dismissed and the result was that the application of the Respondents for various writs made on the 23rd May, 1955, was also dismissed.
( 1 ) THE Collector of Customs, Calcutta and four of his officials on one side and a firm called the Calcutta Motor and Cycle Company and its four partners on the other are both dissatisfied with an order of Sinha J. , dated the 9th August, 1955, whereby he quashed three notices issued by the Customs officials under Section 171-A (1) of the Sea Customs Act on the partners of the firm and at the same time held that a search of the premises of the firm and the seizure of certain prohibited goods thereat had been perfectly legal. The Collector and his co-appellants want the notices to stand, while the members of the firm want the search and seizure to be declared illegal and the goods seized to be returned to them. Against so much of the order as is adverse to them, the Customs officials have appealed, while the remainder of the order has been challenged by the members of the firm in a cross-objection.
( 2 ) THE facts are simple and may be shortly stated. According to the Customs authorities, they received information that the Respondent firm, in collusion with various other firms, had been importing goods without valid licences, were not declaring the correct value or the correct description of the goods at the time of their importation and were bringing into existence various documents for the purpose of creating evidence in their favour. On receipt of such information, they made some enquiries and came into possession of certain facts and eventually on the 16th May, 1955, the Assistant Collector of Customs and Superintendent of Preventive Service made an application to the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta under section 172 of the Sea Customs Act for the issue of four warrants for the search of the four premises, including the firm's shop, its godown and the residence of one of its partners. The Magistrate issued the warrants applied for. On the strength of one of those warrants relating to the firm's shop at 5, Bentinck Street, Calcutta, the Customs authorities held a search of the shop rooms which began in the afternoon of the 18th May, 1955 and was concluded in the morning of the following day. In the course of the search, they seized one bundle of velvet and one bundle of sharkskin which were admittedly prohibited goods. They also seized a large number of files, but when they wanted to take them away, strong objections were raised by a large band of lawyers whom the firm's partners had in the meantime brought to the scene. This happened at about 9 p. m. and as the Customs officials were unable to deal with the legal arguments of the lawyers and could not also, at that late hour, consult the Government Solicitor, which they wanted to do, they left the files in one of the ante-rooms and sealed its doors. It is alleged that many of the files contained incriminating material, but when on the next day the door was unlocked, it was found that a large number of the files had disappeared. The search was continued and concluded at 10-15 a. m. , the search party taking away with them the two bundles of sharkskin and velvet and seven files which were allegedly all the files left.
( 3 ) ON that very day, i. e. on the 19th May, 1955, one Shri D. G. Banerji, Rummaging Inspector (Intelligence), issued a notice on Shri S. M. Jajodia, one of the partners of the firm, under Section 171-A (2) of the Sea Customs Act. The notice sai3 that on checking the files it had been found that as many as 52 files, the numbers of which were given, were missing and Shri Jajodia was asked to produce those files within a week. A second notice under no particular provision of law was also issued on the same day on Shri S. M. Jajodia by one Shri C. Basu, Superintendent, Preventive Service and by that notice he was asked to produce by the 23rd May, 1955, any evidence which he might have in his possession to show that the sharkskin and velvet had been legally imported into India or if his firm had not imported the goods but purcha
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
