1964 (11) TMI 111 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 105 of the Customs Act.
2. Validity of the search and seizure conducted under Section 105.
3. Constitutionality of Section 105 of the Customs Act.
4. Scope of the term "any proceeding under this Act" in Section 105.
5. Requirement of a pending or contemplated proceeding for issuing a warrant under Section 105.
6. Basis for the "reason to believe" under Section 105.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Interpretation of Section 105 of the Customs Act
The petitioner argued that Section 105 of the Customs Act should be given a liberal interpretation in favor of the petitioner. However, the court found that the words of Section 105 are clear and unambiguous. The court stated, "We find that the words of S. 105 of the Act are clear and not equivocal and that the sentences are not ambiguous and do not leave any doubt of their meaning." Therefore, a liberal interpretation as proposed by the petitioner was not warranted.

Issue 2: Validity of the Search and Seizure Conducted under Section 105
The petitioner contended that the search and seizure were illegal due to various defects in the warrants and the manner of conducting the search. The court examined each alleged defect:
- The court found that the warrants did not need to specify detailed information as argued by the petitioner.
- It was noted that "Section 105 itself does not indicate that details such as concerned in the alleged defects (i) to (v) should be mentioned in the warrant."
- The court also found that the search was not "all-embracing" and that the search officer acted within the scope of the warrant.
- Regarding compliance with Section 165 Cr. P.C., the court found that "No contravention of provisions of Cr. P. C. is proved."
- The court held that the action of taking into custody various articles did not amount to seizure under the Customs Act, thus no order of seizure was required at that stage.
- The court concluded that the alleged defects did not vitiate the issue of warrants and search except for the detention of Indian-made beer.

Issue 3: Constitutionality of Section 105 of the Customs Act
The petitioner argued that Section 105 was unconstitutional as it provided uncanalised and arbitrary power to the warrant officer. The court referred to various Supreme Court judgments to conclude that the power under Section 105 is not arbitrary and has sufficient safeguards. The court stated, "We respectfully agree with always views expressed by the learned Judges of the Bombay High Court and hold that the power given under S. 105, cannot be said to be an unguided, uncanalised, absolute or naked power and is, therefore, not ultra vires the Constitution."

Issue 4: Scope of the Term "Any Proceeding under this Act" in Section 105
The petitioner contended that the term "any proceeding under this Act" should only refer to proceedings directly under the Customs Act and not under any other Act. The court found that the Customs Act has a wide scope and field for ensuring the security and well-being of the country and its citizens. The court stated, "The Act, directly by its own provisions and indirectly by various provisions in other Acts like S. 23-A of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act read with S. 11 of the Customs Act, has wide scope and field for the purpose of ensuring the security and well-being of the country and its citizens."

Issue 5: Requirement of a Pending or Contemplated Proceeding for Issuing a Warrant under Section 105
The petitioner argued that a warrant under Section 105 could only be issued if a proceeding was pending or contemplated. The court agreed with this contention, stating, "It is clear from the wording of S. 105 of the Customs Act that the 'proceeding under this Act' must be one pending or contemplated and for the purpose of which, the warrant is to be issued and therefore cannot be identical with the proceeding consisting of mere issue of warrant."

Issue 6: Basis for the "Reason to Believe" under Section 105
The petitioner argued that there was no basis for the warrant officer's "reason to believe" as required under Section 105. The court examined the records and found that there was a basis for the warrant officer's belief. The court stated, "There is no room to hold that there was no basis which gave the warrant officer reason to believe at the time when he issued the warrants."

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition except for ordering that the two quart bottles of Indian-made beer should not be detained by the Customs Authorities. The petitioner was directed to pay the costs of the respondents.