1971 (4) TMI 37 - SC - Customs

Whether Section 187A of the Act is unconstitutional on the ground that it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution? Held that - The power conferred by Section 187A has to be exercised for effectuating the object and purpose of the Act keeping in view the entire scheme. It cannot, therefore, be said that any unguided discretion or power has been conferred of the nature which would come within the inhibition of Article 14. The principal contention of the learned counsel for the appellant based on Article 14 must fail. We are satisfied that the High Court rightly upheld the conviction for the offences in question but taking into consideration every aspect of the matter we consider that the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant together with the fine which has been imposed apart from the order relating to the confiscation of goods will serve the ends of justice. Appeal allowed in part

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Section 187A of the Sea Customs Act, 1878.
2. Alleged discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution.
3. Conviction and sentencing under Section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Procedural fairness in the prosecution under the Sea Customs Act, 1878.

Detailed Analysis:

Constitutionality of Section 187A of the Sea Customs Act, 1878:
The primary issue was whether Section 187A of the Act was unconstitutional for being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Section 187A stipulates that no court shall take cognizance of any offence relating to smuggling of goods punishable under Item 81 of Section 167 except upon a written complaint by the Chief Customs Officer or an authorized officer. The appellant argued that this section allowed the Customs authorities unfettered discretion to decide whether to prosecute under Section 167(8) or Section 167(81), leading to potential discrimination.

Alleged Discrimination under Article 14:
The appellant contended that the discretion granted to Customs officers under Section 187A led to discrimination, as there were no guidelines for when to file a complaint under Section 167(81). The appellant argued that this discretion could result in arbitrary and unequal treatment, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court examined the provisions and noted that while Section 23D of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, provided explicit guidelines, the Sea Customs Act did not. However, the Court emphasized that the Customs officers are expected to act reasonably and in good faith, taking into account the enormity and magnitude of the contravention and the available evidence.

Conviction and Sentencing under Section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code:
The appellant was convicted for defrauding the Government of customs duty and evading import prohibitions through a criminal conspiracy involving contraband goods. The High Court upheld the conviction and sentenced the appellant to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for each of the four charges, with substantive sentences running concurrently. The Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the High Court rightly upheld the conviction. However, considering all aspects, the Supreme Court reduced the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the appellant.

Procedural Fairness in the Prosecution under the Sea Customs Act, 1878:
The Court examined whether the procedural provisions under the Act provided sufficient guidelines to prevent arbitrary prosecution. It concluded that the Customs officers, being high-ranking officials, are expected to exercise their discretion reasonably and in accordance with the object and purpose of the Act. The Court referenced past judgments, including Matajog Dobey v. H.C. Bhari and Niemla Textiles Finishing Mills Ltd. v. The 2nd Punjab Tribunal, to support the view that discretionary power does not equate to discriminatory power and that the authorities are bound by the principles of fairness and reasonableness.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that Section 187A of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, was not unconstitutional and did not violate Article 14. The Customs officers' discretion under this section was deemed to be guided by the Act's object and purpose, ensuring procedural fairness. The appellant's conviction was upheld, but the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone. The appeal was allowed to the extent of reducing the imprisonment term, while in all other respects, it was dismissed. The appellant's bail bonds were discharged.