SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1976 Supreme(Cal) 71

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
SANKAR PRASAD MITRA, SALIL KUMAR DATTA, J.
KANHAIYALAL AGARWALA AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
A. F. O. O. T. No. 259 of 1976,
Decided On : 24 -2 -1976.

The inclusion of COFEPOSA in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution barred any challenge to its vires on grounds of violation of fundamental rights.

Headnote:

CUSTOMS ACT, 1962 - GOLD (CONTROL) ACT, 1968 - COFEPOSA - SEARCH AND SEIZURE - INTERIM INJUNCTION - Vires of COFEPOSA - INCLUSION IN NINTH SCHEDULE - SUSPENSION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS - MALA FIDES - DETENTION - JUDICIAL SCRUTINY - INTERIM INJUNCTION DURING EMERGENCY - VACATION.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners challenged the search and seizure of their locker by Customs officials under the Customs Act, 1962 and Gold (Control) Act, 1968, alleging mala fides and lack of jurisdiction. They also sought to challenge the vires of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) and the Presidential Order suspending the right to move Court for enforcement of certain fundamental rights during the emergency.

Finding of the Court:

1. The Court found that there was prima facie evidence to support the belief of the Assistant Collector of Customs that goods liable to confiscation or incriminating documents were secreted in the petitioners' locker, justifying the search and seizure. 2. The Court held that the challenge to the vires of COFEPOSA on grounds of violation of fundamental rights was not available in law due to its inclusion in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution. 3. The Court found that the petitioners' allegations of mala fides and threats of detention under COFEPOSA were not sufficient to grant an interim injunction, as the detention order could only be passed by high-ranking government officials after considering all relevant materials. 4. The Court held that interim injunctions enforcing fundamental rights during the emergency period were not permissible and had to be vacated. 5. The Court dismissed the petitioners' application for stay of operation of the impugned order.

Issues: 1. Whether the search and seizure of the petitioners' locker was lawful and justified. 2. Whether the challenge to the vires of COFEPOSA on grounds of violation of fundamental rights was maintainable. 3. Whether the petitioners were entitled to an interim injunction restraining the respondents from detaining them under COFEPOSA. 4. Whether interim injunctions enforcing fundamental rights during the emergency period were permissible.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Assistant Collector of Customs had a reasonable belief that goods liable to confiscation or incriminating documents were secreted in the petitioners' locker, based on the available evidence. 2. The Court found that the inclusion of COFEPOSA in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution barred any challenge to its vires on grounds of violation of fundamental rights. 3. The Court held that the petitioners' allegations of mala fides and threats of detention under COFEPOSA were not sufficient to grant an interim injunction, as the detention order could only be passed by high-ranking government officials after considering all relevant materials. 4. The Court held that interim injunctions enforcing fundamental rights during the emergency period were not permissible and had to be vacated.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petitioners' application for stay of operation of the impugned order, which had vacated the interim injunction granted earlier.

JUDGEMENT

Salil Kumar Datta, J. :- This is an application in an appeal from an order dated January 19, 1976 passed by P.K. Banerjee, J. in the connected rule vacating the interim order obtained by the petitioners along with the issuance of rule. The petitioners appellants stated in their petition that in pursuance of a search warrant, their Locker No. 1677 in the Bank of India, Vivekananda Road Branch, Calcutta was searched by the respondent No. 4 on April 8, 1975 and ornaments were seized under the Customs Act, 1962 and Gold (Control) Act, 1968. It was stated that the said respondent wrongly described gold bangles seized as gold in shape of rod diced and rounded in the seizure list. The petitioners contended that the search and seizure were mala fide and without jurisdiction as there was no reasonable belief that the goods seized were liable to confiscation or that any goods or documents were secreted. There was no recording of reasons for the search and seizure in terms of Section 105 of the Customs Act nor was any report sent to the Collector of Customs as required under Section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Prior to search on April 7, 1975, the petitioner No. 1 and his mother were taken to the Customs House under compulsion and detained there till 10-30 p.m. During the said detention the respondent No. 4 threatened them stating that the petitioners and all their family members would be put under detention unless they put answers to the questions according to his suggestions and would also be given electric shocks. The Customs Officers and police had kept constant vigilance over the petitioners who were asked not to leave Calcutta while papers were being made ready to secure their detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 hereinafter referred to as COFEPOSA. It was stated that the petitioners had reason to believe that they would be detained at any time under the said Act mala fide and for a collateral purpose. It was further said that the gold ornaments were in possession with them long before about 15/20 years and some of them belonged to their relatives. The provisions of COFEPOSA it was said, were void and ultra vires Articles 14, 19, 21 and 22. Further suspension of the right to move Court with respect to orders of detention under COFEPOSA for enforcement of rights under Articles 14, 21, 22 of the Constitution was not warranted by law.

2. On these allegations and contentions the petitioners moved this Court by an application under Article 226(1) of the Constitution on April 29, 1975 when a Rule Nisi being C. R. No. 11447-W of 1975 was issued on the Union of India and the State of West Bengal and their concerned officials, calling upon them to show cause inter alia why a writ in the nature of mandamus should not issue commanding them to act and proceed in accordance with law, and directing them to rescind, recall, cancel or withdraw the search order and the seizure made by the respondent No. 4, the Proclamation of Emergency dated December 3, 1971, order dated December 25, 1974 and also the order of detention under COFEPOSA if already passed and to forbear from taking any action thereunder against the petitioners and to return the seized goods. There were further prayers for declaring COFEPOSA and the Presidential Order of December 25, 1974 as ultra vires or violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution and also for production of relevant records of the case for the purpose of quashing the proceeding by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari. 3. Along with the issue of Rule Nisi, the Court also issued an interim injunction in terms of prayer (g) which is to the following effect :

"(g) Interim order restraining the respondents, their agents and subordinates from proceeding with and/or taking any action in pursuance of the seizure made on April 8, 1975 by the respondent No. 4 pursuant to the search order No. 34/75 dated April 4, 1975 is































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top