Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Sinha
ANNADA PRASANNA MAJUMDAR - Appellant
Versus
T. C. SETH, COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS - Respondent
Civil Revn. 1207 Of 1955
Decided On : JUNE 11, 1956
SEA CUSTOMS ACT, 1878 - SECTION 168, 182, 183 - CONFISCATION OF VEHICLE USED FOR SMUGGLING - KNOWLEDGE OF OWNER IRRELEVANT - FINE IN LIEU OF CONFISCATION - REASONABLENESS - RIGHT TO COUNSEL - ARTICLE 19 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's taxi was seized for transporting smuggled betel nuts. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, alleging that he had aided and abetted the smuggling. The petitioner submitted a written explanation, denying any knowledge of the smuggling. The Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs confiscated the taxi under Section 168 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, and imposed a fine of Rs. 2000/- in lieu of confiscation.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the confiscation of the vehicle under Section 168 of the Act was a proceeding against the vehicle, irrespective of the ownership. Therefore, the petitioner's knowledge of the smuggling was irrelevant. The court also held that the fine imposed was reasonable and that the petitioner was not prevented from being represented by a lawyer.
Issues: 1. Whether the confiscation of the vehicle under Section 168 of the Act was a proceeding against the vehicle, irrespective of the ownership? 2. Whether the petitioner's knowledge of the smuggling was relevant? 3. Whether the fine imposed was reasonable? 4. Whether the petitioner was prevented from being represented by a lawyer? 5. Whether the rights conferred under Section 182 or 183 of the Act to impose penalties without limit, or fines as the officer thinks fit, without any indication as to the method or mode of exercising such discretion, was ultra vires Article 19 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the case of De Keyser v. British Railway Traffic and Electric Company, Limited (1936) 1 KB 224 (A) to hold that the confiscation of the vehicle under Section 168 of the Act was a proceeding against the vehicle, irrespective of the ownership. 2. The court held that the petitioner's knowledge of the smuggling was irrelevant, as the confiscation was a proceeding against the vehicle, not the owner. 3. The court held that the fine imposed was reasonable, as it was only Rs. 2000/- for a vehicle valued at Rs. 13000/-. 4. The court held that the petitioner was not prevented from being represented by a lawyer, as he was given notice that he could employ a lawyer and there was no evidence that he attempted to do so but was prevented. 5. The court held that it could not allow the petitioner to raise the point that the rights conferred under Section 182 or 183 of the Act to impose penalties without limit, or fines as the officer thinks fit, without any indication as to the method or mode of exercising such discretion, was ultra vires Article 19 of the Constitution, as this point was not taken in the petition.
Final Decision: The court discharged the Rule and vacated the interim order. There was no order as to costs.
( 1 ) THE facts in this case are shortly as follows: The petitioner is the owner of a Taxi Cab No. WET-1099 and holds a permit No. P. Co. P. 1871 in respect of the same. He employed a driver of the name of Md. Ibrahim, The Central Preventive Circle, Land Customs, Calcutta, received information that contraband betel nuts would be transported by Taxi Cab No. 1099 from Bongaon to Calcutta via the Jessore Road. Officers of the Central 'preventive Circle, Land Customs, kept watch at Gate No. 2 of the Habra Railway Level Crossing. On 30-12-1954 at about 2 A. M. in the night, they found a taxi coining from the direction of Bongaon, They closed the Railway gate when the taxi was near the gate, and although the driver made an attempt, to turn round, the taxi was apprehended. It was found to bear the registered number WBT-1099 and upon check, 7 bags of betel-nut were found inside the taxi. Apart from the driver named Ibrahim, there were two persons Sarkar and Haldar, who claimed the goods but could not produce any document to show their right to the goods. A written-statement was taken and these two persons said that they had purchased the betel nuts at Bongaon Railbazar but that they did not know whether the goods were Brought from Pakistan or not. The driver Md. Ibrahim said that he was waiting in the Sealdah Taxi Stand for passengers when these two persons approached him and engaged his taxi for carrying betelnuts from Bongaon to Calcutta for the remuneration of Rs. 45/ -. He had no grounds for suspecting, that the betelnuts were smuggled goods. The contraband goods as well as the taxi were seized and taken into custody. On or about 11-1-1955 a show-cause notice was issued upon the petitioner by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Land Customs Central Preventive Circle, Calcutta, stating that there were reasons to believe that 7 bags of betelnuts of Pakistan origin weighing 12 maunds were being unlawfully imported to India from Pakistan without a valid land custom permit or any other permit. The goods were liable to confiscation under Sections 5 and 7 of the Land Customs Act. It was further stated that the petitioner had aided and abetted in this smuggling of the goods. He was asked to show cause why penal action should not be taken under Section 7, Land Customs Act, and as to why the taxi cab should not be confiscated for being engaged in the act of removal of the contraband betelnuts. The petitioner submitted a written explanation. He stated that the petitioner did not have anything to do with the alleged smuggling. That he employed the driver Md. Ibrahim, and the taxi cab was taken out as usual to ply on hire. He urged that it was impossible for him to know where and how passengers were being carried on hire, and that he had given clear directions to the driver not to carry any contraband goods. On 4-3-1955 there was a personal hearing. At that hearing the driver said that he did not know what was being carried in the bags. This was of course inconsistent with what he had stated in the first instance, namely, that two persons had engaged his taxi at Sealdah for the purpose of transporting a quantity of betelnuts from Bongaon to Calcutta. The Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs considered the matter and passed an order on 20-3-1955, A copy of the Order is annexed to the petition. He has referred to the impossibility of believing that 12 maunds of betelnuts could be carried inside the taxi cab at dead of night from Bongaon to Calcutta without the driver suspecting that there was anything illegal in it. The Collector did not come to any definite finding that the petitioner had actual knowledge of the smuggling or that he expressly permitted it or took any part in it. On the facts, however, he passed an order confiscating the taxi cab under Section 168, Sea Customs Act, 1878 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). In terms of Section 183 of the Act, he gave the petitioner an option to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in
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
