1955 (8) TMI 37 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Section 171A, Sea Customs Act.
2. Authority of Customs to seize goods and documents under search warrants.
3. Legality of the seizure of goods and documents.
4. Restoration of seized goods and documents to the petitioner.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutionality of Section 171A, Sea Customs Act:
The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of Section 171A of the Sea Customs Act, 1955, arguing it was ultra vires as it compelled an accused person to give evidence against themselves, violating Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The court noted that Article 20(3) states no person 'accused of an offence' shall be compelled to be a witness against themselves. The court referenced the definition of 'offence' under the General Clauses Act and the Supreme Court's interpretation in 'Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay' and 'M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra', which extended the protection against testimonial compulsion to stages before a trial and to the production of documents. The court concluded that Section 171A, in so far as it compelled an accused to give evidence or produce documents, was unconstitutional and invalidated the relevant notices issued under this section.

2. Authority of Customs to Seize Goods and Documents under Search Warrants:
The court examined the provisions of Section 172 of the Sea Customs Act, which allows a Magistrate to issue search warrants for dutiable or prohibited goods. The search warrants are to be executed similarly to those under the Criminal Procedure Code, implying the authority to seize items found during the search. Although the search warrant in this case did not explicitly authorize seizure, the court inferred that seizure is implied in the execution of a search warrant under Section 172.

3. Legality of the Seizure of Goods and Documents:
The petitioner argued that the seizure of goods and documents was illegal as the search warrants did not explicitly authorize such action. The court, however, held that the seizure was lawful, as the power to seize is implied in the authority to search under Section 172. Additionally, the court considered Section 178 of the Sea Customs Act, which allows for the seizure of goods liable to confiscation. The court found that the Customs authorities believed the seized goods were prohibited or had avoided duty, satisfying the conditions under Section 178.

4. Restoration of Seized Goods and Documents to the Petitioner:
The petitioner sought the return of the seized goods and documents. The court ruled that while the notices issued under Section 171A were invalid, the seizure of goods and documents was lawful under the implied authority of Section 172 and the provisions of Section 178. Therefore, the court did not order the restoration of the seized items.

Conclusion:
The court issued a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to forbear from enforcing the notices issued under Section 171A of the Sea Customs Act and quashed the orders contained in these notices. The rest of the rule was discharged, and all interim orders were vacated except those relating to the invalidated notices. No order as to costs was made.