1962 (2) TMI 3 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the search and seizure under Section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 18 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
2. Admissibility of the statement (Ext. R2) under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
3. Denial of opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence regarding the statement Ext. R2.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Search and Seizure:
The petitioner contended that the search and seizure conducted by the Customs authorities on 27-1-1960 were contrary to Section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, read with Section 18 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The court acknowledged that the provisions of Section 165 were not complied with. However, it was held that non-compliance with Section 165 does not render the entire proceedings, including the orders Exts. P3 and P4, illegal and void. The court referred to the Full Bench decision in C. Velayudhan v. State of Kerala, which held that an illegal search does not vitiate the trial or make the evidence inadmissible. The Supreme Court decision in State of Rajasthan v. Rahman was also considered, which emphasized compliance with Section 165 but did not invalidate subsequent proceedings due to non-compliance.

2. Admissibility of the Statement (Ext. R2) under Article 20(3):
The petitioner argued that the statement recorded (Ext. R2) should not have been relied upon as it contravened Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which protects against self-incrimination. The court found that the petitioner was not formally accused of any offense at the time the statement was recorded on 27-1-1960. The formal accusation was considered to have been made only on 13-2-1960 when the show-cause notice was issued. Thus, the court concluded that Article 20(3) was not applicable, and Ext. R2 could be used as evidence.

3. Denial of Opportunity to Adduce Evidence:
The petitioner claimed that he was denied the opportunity to substantiate his contention that Ext. R2 was obtained under duress. The court found no merit in this claim, noting that the petitioner was given a personal hearing, represented by counsel, and had the opportunity to submit a full statement. The counter-affidavit by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise confirmed that the petitioner did not request any further opportunity to adduce evidence. The court accepted the Collector's statements and concluded that there was no denial of opportunity.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders Exts. P3 and P4. The search and seizure, despite non-compliance with Section 165, did not invalidate the proceedings. The statement Ext. R2 was admissible as there was no formal accusation at the time it was recorded, and the petitioner was not denied the opportunity to present evidence.