BABULAL AMTHALAL MEHTA versus THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA

Citation: [1957] 1 S.C.R. 1110 · Decided: 08-05-1957 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

1957 
Mr. ·c· 
v. 
Tht Advocate-
Geiieral of Madras 
Sinha J. 
1957 
M'!Y B. 
1110 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1957] 
with clients who have to trust their legal advisers 
with moneys in the course of their fiduciary relation-
ship. 
These 
protracted 
proceedings 
against 
the 
appellant leading up to the summons under rule 30 of 
Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules have ended in 
the removal of the appellant's name from the roll of 
advocates of the High Court and of this Court, but 
only after the complainant has lost his good money. 
It is clear, therefore, 
that 
the 
continuance of the 
appellant in the legal profession is a serious menace 
to the profession itself, which requires a high degree 
of integrity of character and sense of responsibility in 
which the appellant has been found singularly lacking. 
In view of these considerations, the appeal must be 
dismissed and the rule made absolute with the result 
that the 
appellant's name shall stand removed from 
the roll of advocates of this Court. 
Appeal dismissed. 
BABULAL AMTHALAL MEHTA 
"· 
THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA 
(S. R. DAS C.J., JAFER IMAM, s. K. DAS, 
GovINDA MENON and A. K. SARKAR JJ.) 
Sea Customs-Goods sei%ed in reasonable belief that they are 
1muggled goods-Burden of proof-If violative of equal protection 
of law-Sea Customs Act (VII of 1878), as amended by Amending 
Act (XX! of 1955), 1. 178-A-Constitution of India, Art. 14. 
Section 178-A of the Sea Customs Act which places the burden 
of proving that any of the goods mentioned in 
the section and 
reasonably believed to ~ smuggled are not really so on the person 
from whose p:>ssession they arc seized, is 
not discrimin2tive in 
character and does not violate equal protcCtion of law guaranteed 
by Art. 14 of the Constitution. 
Budhan Chaudhury and Others v. The State of Bihar, (1955) I 
S.C.R. 1045, applied. 
Purushottam Govindji Halai v. Shri B. M. Desai, (1955) 2 S.C.R. 
889 and A. Thangal Kunju Musaliar v. M. Venkitachalam Potti 
and another (1955) 2 S.C.R. 1196, referred to. 
J 
1 ... 
' 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
1111 
William N. McFerland v. American Sugar Refining Co., (1916) 
241 U.S. 79, W. D. Manley v. State of Georgia, (1929) 279 U.S. 1 
and Tot v. United States, (1943) 319 U.S. 463, held inapplicable. 
Consequently, in a case where the Collector of Customs on the 
failure of a person, from whose possession certain diamond pieces 
were seized, to prove that they were not. smuggled goods but were 
legally 
imported into India, confiscated 
the 
diamonds 
under 
ss. 167(8) and 167(39) of the Sea Customs Act, no violation of the 
fundamental 
right conferred 
by 
Art. 
14 of .. the 
Constitution 
occurred. 
ORIGINAL JuRISDICTION : Petition No. 98 of 1956. 
Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India 
for enforcement of fundamental rights. 
N. C. Chatterjee and S. C. Majumdar, for the 
petitioner. 
· 
P. A. Mehta, R. Ganapathy Iyer and R. H. Dhebar, 
for the respondents Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 . 
1957. May 8. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
· 
1957 
Babula! Amlhalol 
.llehta 
Y. 
The Co/lerlor of 
Customs, Caku1111 
GoVINDA MENON, J.-This application under Art. 32 
Go,.indaMmonJ. 
of the Constitution raises the question of the consti-
tutionality of s. 178-A, inserted in the Sea Customs Act, 
(VIII of 1878), s. 14 of the Amending Act XXI of 
1955, and the chief ground on which it is sought to be 
struck down is that it offends Art. 14 of the Constitu-
tion. From the affidavits of both the parties to which 
there are annexures the following facts emerge : 
The petitioner carries on business as a broker in 
diamonds and precious stones in Calcutta and, accord-
ing to him, he enjoys credit and reputation in the 
market as a well-known and respectable broker of such 
goods. On May 4, 1955, the Rummaging Inspector 
(Intelligence), Customs House, Culcutta, 
Respondent 
No. 3, armed with a search warrant from the Chief 
Presidency Magistrate, 
Calcutta, Respondent 
No. 
4, 
searched the residential room of the petitioner, situated 
at No. 32, Sir Hariram Goenka Street, Calcutta, and after 
a minute search of the steel almirah in which according 
to the statement of the petitioner, he used to keep his 
stock in trade and finding none there questioned him 
as to where he had secreted the diamonds to which the 
1957 
Babula[ Amihalal 
Mehta 
'. 
Tht Collector of 
Cw toms, Calcutta 
Govinda Menon J. 
1112 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1957} 
reply given by him was in the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.