1959 (5) TMI 19 - SC - Customs

Whether the cognizance taken by the Magistrate on 16-9-1952 was without jurisdiction? Held that - In the present case as the requisite authority had been granted by the Reserve Bank on 27-1-1953 to file a complaint the complaint filed on February 2 was one which complied with the provisions of Section 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and the Additional District Magistrate could take cognizance of the offence which indeed he did on that date. Thus the proceedings before the Additional District Magistrate and the trying Magistrate were with jurisdiction and the trial of the appellant was legal. Appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the search conducted by Customs officials.
2. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate in issuing the warrant of arrest.
3. Legality of the proceedings initiated without proper authorization under Section 23(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.
4. Whether the appellant's actions constituted an attempt to take currency out of India.
5. Validity of the High Court overturning the acquittal by the trial Magistrate.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Search Conducted by Customs Officials:
The appellant argued that the search conducted by Customs officials, which led to the detection of currency notes on his person, was illegal. Consequently, no proceedings could be based on such detection. This point was rejected by the High Court, which held that the search was legal and valid.

2. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate in Issuing the Warrant of Arrest:
The appellant contended that the Magistrate issued the warrant of arrest on 16-9-1952 without having taken cognizance of the offence, which was a jurisdictional error. Since the authorization required under Section 23(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was obtained only on 27-1-1953, the cognizance taken by the Magistrate on 16-9-1952 was without jurisdiction. The Supreme Court examined the sequence of events and concluded that the Magistrate had not taken cognizance of the offence on 16-9-1952 but had merely permitted the investigation to proceed. Cognizance was taken only on 2-2-1953, after the proper authorization was obtained.

3. Legality of the Proceedings Initiated Without Proper Authorization:
The appellant argued that the proceedings were initiated without proper authorization from the Reserve Bank of India, as required under Section 23(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. The Supreme Court clarified that the authorization to file a complaint was granted on 27-1-1953, and the complaint was filed on 2-2-1953. Therefore, the proceedings initiated after this date were legal and within jurisdiction.

4. Whether the Appellant's Actions Constituted an Attempt to Take Currency out of India:
The appellant claimed that he had no intention of taking the currency out of India and that he had voluntarily handed over the currency notes to the Customs Officers. The High Court did not accept this version and found that the appellant had clearly attempted to take the currency out of India. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's finding, stating that the appellant's actions had gone beyond mere preparation and constituted an attempt to carry the currency out of India without a permit.

5. Validity of the High Court Overturning the Acquittal by the Trial Magistrate:
The appellant argued that the High Court should not have overturned the acquittal by the trial Magistrate, who had accepted his explanation. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence and found no reason to distrust the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The High Court's decision to convict the appellant was based on sound reasoning and evidence. The Supreme Court found no error in the High Court's judgment and upheld the conviction.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment. The search conducted by Customs officials was deemed legal, and the proceedings initiated after proper authorization were within jurisdiction. The appellant's actions were found to constitute an attempt to take currency out of India, and the High Court's decision to overturn the acquittal was upheld. The trial of the appellant was deemed legal and within jurisdiction.

← Previous Next →