1967 (1) TMI 39 - SC - Customs

Whether the search of the premises of the appellant and the seizure of the articles and the documents found therein was valid? Held that - The contention that the Assistant Collector and the officer authorized by him to make the search acted with mala fides has no substance. Though the words reason to believe are not in terms embodied in the authorization, the phraseology used in effect and substance meant the same thing. The authorization issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs in this case clearly mentioned that on information received it appeared that the appellant was in possession of contraband goods and documents relating thereto and also described the office and the residential premises wherein those goods and documents would be found. In the circumstances of the case we are satisfied that the specifications are sufficient to enable the officer authorized to make the search. It is, therefore, not possible to invoke that condition and apply it to a situation arising under Section 105 of the Act. It is not necessary in this case to particularize which of the other clauses or part of the clauses of that section can be applied to a search under Section 105 of the Act. We, therefore, reject this contention also. It is clear that not only a policy is laid down in Section 105, but also that the acts of the Assistant Collector are effectively controlled in the manner stated above. We cannot, therefore, say that Section 105 offends Article 14 of the Constitution. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Validity of search and seizure of articles and documents.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal challenging the validity of a search and seizure conducted by the Assistant Collector of Customs and Central Excise under Rule 126(L)(2) of the Defence of India (Amendment) Rules, 1963. The appellant, a mining proprietor and exporter of manganese ore, had his premises searched based on information about undeclared gold possession. The High Court of Bombay dismissed the petition challenging the search, leading to the appeal in the Supreme Court.

The appellant raised several contentions, including allegations of mala fides against the Assistant Collector. The Court found no substance in these claims, upholding the High Court's decision. Additionally, a key contention was regarding the authorization for the search not explicitly stating the Assistant Collector's "reason to believe" as required under the Customs Act.

The Court analyzed the authorization's language, concluding that despite not using the exact phrase "reason to believe," the authorization effectively conveyed the same meaning. It was established that the Assistant Collector's authorization sufficiently described the nature of goods and documents to be searched for, enabling the officer to conduct a focused search.

Another issue raised was the interpretation of Section 110 of the Customs Act concerning the seizure of goods by a "Proper Officer." The argument centered on whether the Collector of Customs could assign seizure functions to another officer. The Court clarified that both the Board and the Collector could assign functions to customs officers, dismissing the contention against the seizure's validity.

Furthermore, the appellant contended that the search was void due to non-compliance with the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court rejected this argument, distinguishing the different requirements under Section 105 of the Act and Section 165 of the Code. It emphasized that the provisions catered to distinct scenarios and did not necessitate identical procedures.

Lastly, the appellant challenged the Assistant Collector's reasonable belief in conducting the search. The Court upheld the High Court's finding that the Assistant Collector had acted with reasonable belief, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence to challenge such belief. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, with the Court urging the Customs Authorities to expedite their investigation and return unnecessary seized documents to the appellant.