COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, BHUBNESHWAR, DISTRICT PURI versus PARADIP PORT TRUST AND ANR.

Citation: [1990] 3 S.C.R. 705 · Decided: 08-08-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. SAIKIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
---
___.-.. _ 
' 
l 
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, 
BHUBNESHW AR, DISTRICT PURI 
V. 
PARADIP PORT TRUST AND ANR. 
AUGUST 8, 1990 
[K.N. SAIKIA AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Customs Act, 1962: Chapter XIV and XVI-Sections 177, 133 
A 
B 
and 151-Contravention of provisions under Chapter XVI-Whether 
amounts to abetment of contravention of any other provision under 
Chapter XIV-Order passed under section 117 only-High Court not · 
gone into this aspect-Also Second Respondent not represented-Matter 
C 
remanded to High Court for fresh disposal. 
A commercial vessel which arrived at Paradip Port was rum-
maged by the Customs Officers aod contrabaod goods worth more thao 
Rs.1,40,000 were recovered. The officers also detained the vessel by 
issue of a notice to the Master of the vessel with a copy to the second 
respondent, the Deputy Conservator of Paradip Port Trust. 
At the instaot of the second respondent aod aoother, the vessel 
was shifted to the reads far away from the port in the high sea. This 
resulted in the interruption of the rummaging operation and the vessel 
being ten unguarded for about 38 hours, during which period it was 
alleged that the contrabaod goods disappeared from the vessel. 
The second respondent was asked to show cause as to why be 
should not be proceeded against and why penalty should not be impose() 
on him, under Sections 117 and 151 of the Cnstoms Act, 1962. 1n his 
reply, the second respondent took the plea that the Customs aod Cent-
ral Excise Authorities had no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings against 
him and that section 151 of the Ac< was not attracted. Rejecting his 
plea, the Collector imposed a penalty of Rs.1,000 nnder section 117 of 
the Act. 
The said order of the Collector was challenged in the High Conrt 
by way of-writ petitions. The High Conrt allowerl the writ petitions aod 
quashed the penalty. This appeal, by special leave, is against the orders 
of the High Conrt quashing the penalty. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
On behalf of the appeDaot it was contended that Section 133 
H 
705 
706 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990) 3 S.C.R. 
A creates an offence and also prescribes a penalty, and though the section 
"'-
is referable to Court in so far as prosecution and punishment is con-
cerned for the offence, there would be no bar to deal with that offence 
under s. 117 of the Act. It was also contended that there would be no 
double jeopardy if in an appropriate case one has been prosecuted and 
punished under the sections in Chapter XVI of the Act and also sub-
B jected to penalty under the provisions other than those in Chapter XVI 
of the Act for offences including those in Chapter XVI of the Act. 
c 
D 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD: 1. Where the same Act or event constitutes an offence 
under Chapter XVI and at the same time constitutes a contravention or 
abetment of contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or failure 
to perform any duty prescribed under the Act or amounts to non-
compliance with any of the provisions of the Act, there will be pos!ibi-
lity of prosecution and punishment under Chapter XVI of the Act and 
any other provision of law and the same time confiscation and penalty 
under Chapter XIV of the Act. [7 lOG-Hi 
2. In the instant case, the vessel could, therefore, lawfully be 
detained, rummaged and the goods suspected seized. There may be 
scope for holding that there was intentional obstruction on the part of 
the second respondent if the allegations are proved. Where there was an 
E 
order for seizure it would amount to obstruction under s. 186 IPC if the 
goods were not allowed to be removed. Obstruction is not confmed to 
physical obtstruction and it includes anything which makes it more 
difficult for the police or public servant to carry out their duties. [7 I IB; Fj 
Santosh Kumar v. State. AIR J95J SC 201 and Hinchliffe v. 
F 
Sheldon, [1955) l WLR 1207, referred to. 
3. In the Collector's order, though there was discussion of offence 
under s. 133 and failure to perform duty under s. 151, the order itself 
was passed ex facie under the provisions of S. 117 of the Act. There is no 
discussion in the High Court's order on this aspect of the matter and 
G 
there is no indication as to whether this was urged or not before the High 
Court. Further, since the second respondent is not represented before 
this Court, the said order is set aside and the cases remanded to the 
High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law in the light of the 
obser
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.