9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1969 (11) TMI 85 - SC - CustomsWhether the Sea Customs Act 1878 applies? Whether the Bihar Regulation I of 1951 is in excess of the Governor s powers? Whether the Land Customs Act 1924 applied on the relevant date of occurrence namely 13 December J961 to the Santhal Parganas? Whether the Inspectors Uma Shankar and B. N. Jha were acting in the discharge of public duties? Whether they could arrest the appellants and thirdly whether they could seize the cloves? Held that - In the present case the provisions of the Sea Customs Act 1878 are attracted by reason of the provisions contained in section 3 of the Imports and Exports Control Act 1947 and all that can be said is that if section 19 of the Sea Customs Act 1878 were repealed then the Sea Customs Act 1878 would not be attracted. Section 19 of the Sea Customs Act 1878 has not been repealed and was extant and is now reenacted as section 11 in the Sea Customs Act 1962 and there has been corresponding change in the Imports and Exports Control Act 1947 by reference to the Sea Customs Act 1962 and section 11 thereof. The Bihar Regulation I of 1951 is an instance of a valid piece of legislation emanating from the legislative authority in its plenitude of power and there is no aspect of delegated or conditional legislation. It will appear in volume 7 page 5792 of the Bihar Local Acts (1793 to 1963) published by Bharat Law House Allahabad in the year 1966 that the Indian Tariff Act 1894 is found to be one of the Acts mentioned in the Schedule to the Santhal Parganas Settlement Regulation 1872 and the Indian Tariff Act 1894 which was repealed by the Indian Tariff Act 1934 was similarly declared to be in force in the Santhal Parganas. Cloves are goods the import of which is prohibited by the Imports and Exports Control Act 1947 and they are dutiable goods by reason of that meaning of cloves in column 3 item No. 9 (3) of the First, -, Schedule to the Indian Tariff Act 1934 having been attracted by the Imports Control Order 1955. Cloves are prohibited goods within the Imports and Exports Control Act 1947A and are therefore deemed to be prohibited under section 19 of the Sea Customs Act 1878. The circumstances indicated a reasonable suspicion and therefore the Officers were justified in arresting the appellant Nazir Mian under section 173 of the Sea Customs Act 1878. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Authority of Excise Inspectors as Officers of Customs. 2. Power of Excise Inspectors to arrest and seize goods under the Sea Customs Act, 1878. 3. Applicability of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, and other related Acts to the Santhal Parganas. 4. Validity of Bihar Regulation I of 1951. 5. Jurisdiction and applicability of the Land Customs Act, 1924, to the Santhal Parganas. 6. Legality of the arrest and seizure by the Inspectors. 7. Convictions under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. Detailed Analysis: 1. Authority of Excise Inspectors as Officers of Customs: The appellants challenged the authority of the Excise Inspectors, arguing that they were not officers of Customs and lacked the power to arrest and seize goods. The court upheld that the Inspectors were indeed officers of Customs within their respective jurisdictions, empowered under section 6 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, and relevant notifications. The High Court concluded that the Inspectors could exercise power under section 173 and seize goods under section 178 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878. 2. Power of Excise Inspectors to Arrest and Seize Goods: The appellants contended that the arrest and seizure were unlawful due to the non-applicability of the relevant Acts to the Santhal Parganas. The court found that the Sea Customs Act, 1878, and the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947, applied to the Santhal Parganas. The burden was on the appellant Nazir Mian to prove that the cloves were not smuggled goods, which he failed to do. 3. Applicability of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, and Other Related Acts: The court examined whether the Sea Customs Act, 1878, and related Acts applied to the Santhal Parganas. It was established that the Bihar Regulation I of 1951 made the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947, applicable to the Santhal Parganas, thereby bringing the Sea Customs Act, 1878, into effect. The court rejected the contention that only section 19 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, was applicable, affirming that all provisions of the Act were in effect. 4. Validity of Bihar Regulation I of 1951: The appellants argued that Bihar Regulation I of 1951 was in excess of the Governor's powers. The court held that the Regulation was a valid exercise of the Governor's legislative power under paragraph 5 of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution. The power to make regulations included the power to apply laws, and the Regulation was not conditional or delegated legislation. 5. Jurisdiction and Applicability of the Land Customs Act, 1924: The court addressed whether the Land Customs Act, 1924, applied to the Santhal Parganas. It was determined that the Act did not apply as an existing law under Article 372 of the Constitution. However, the Inspectors were deemed Customs Officers under section 6 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, and relevant notifications, allowing them to exercise jurisdiction in the Santhal Parganas. 6. Legality of the Arrest and Seizure by the Inspectors: The court evaluated the legality of the arrest and seizure. The evidence showed that Nazir Mian was found with two bags of cloves, which were concealed in a latrine, and no duty was paid on them. The proximity to the East Pakistan border and the fact that cloves are not grown in India created reasonable suspicion, justifying the arrest under section 173 and the seizure under section 178 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878. 7. Convictions Under Various Sections of the Indian Penal Code: The appellants were convicted under sections 147, 149, 333, and 379 of the Indian Penal Code for forming an unlawful assembly, assaulting Inspectors, rescuing Nazir Mian, and removing seized cloves. The High Court upheld these convictions but corrected an error regarding the conviction under section 332. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the legality of the actions taken by the Excise Inspectors and the applicability of the relevant laws to the Santhal Parganas. The appellants were directed to surrender to serve their sentences.
|
