COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MADRAS AND ORS versus D. BHOORMUL

Citation: [1974] 3 S.C.R. 833 · Decided: 03-04-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
11 
c 
0 
F 
G 
\ 
H 
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MADRAS AND ORS 
v. 
D .. BHOORMUL 
April 3, 1974 
[M. H. BEG AND R. S. SARKARIA, JJ;J 
833 
Sea C11sto1ns Act, 1878, Sec. 167(8_)--Irnports 11nd 
&pons Control Act, 
1947-Sec. 3(2)-Confiscation 
of 
gi:>ods--Goods 
acquired 
jrom 
illegally 
i1nported stocks-Burden of ptoo/, how discharged by tlie DepartmtlJl-lndian 
Evidence Act, Sec. 106---Conflicting and incredible-account by alleged owner 
of facts (regarding iniportation and owner.ship) within Iii& per.tonal knowledge-
How far co11duc1 of 1lie alleged owner determinatii·e of legal inferenct regard· 
ing smuggled nature of goods. 
The preventive officers of the Customs Deptt. recovered from the shop of 
one Baboothmull ten packa8es containing imported goods, such as fountain peos. 
hair clippers, razor sets, etc. worth about Rs. 12,00Q/.. They were lying packed 
as if they had been. fr~shly delivered or were ready for despatch to a further 
destination. The respondent disclaimed not only the ownership but all knowledse 
about the contents of the packages. He could not give a satisfactory aocount 
as to how those packages came into h\.s shop. His first explanation was that 
some next door unknown broker had left the packages outside his shop. 
He 
then :;lated I.hat they were owned bv one Bhoormul. The said Bhoormul despite 
repeated requests by the Deptt, did not furnish any inforn1atton regarding the 
source of the alleged ~uisition of the goods. 
He never appeared penonally 
nor gave address or sufficient particulars of the brokers who bad aold the goods 
to him. Despite two show-cause notices, Bhoormul refused to disclose any 
further information. He did not furnish any evidence of his ownership or even 
juridical posses5ion of the goods. · The Collector of Customs on consideration 
of the fact that the goods were. admittedly foreign goods incredible explanations 
by the resPondent concluded that the goods were acquired from the illegally 
acquired stocks and ordered the confiscation of the goc)ds u/s 167(8) of the 
Sea Customs Act. On a writ petition filed by the respondent. the single Judge 
of the Madras High Court rejected the writ petition but the Letters Patent 
Appeal was allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division. 
Bench held that the Customs Dcptt. had not discharged its burden or proof 
that the goods were smuggled goods. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD : (I) The propriety and legality of the Collector's· order 
is to 
be 
Judged in the light of the principles regarding the burden of proof, Legal proof 
is not necessarily pcrlect proof; often it is nothing more than a prudent man'1 
estimL.te as to the nrobabilities of the case. Since it is cxteedingly difficult for 
the prosecution to prove the facts Which are especially within the knowledge of 
the accused, it is not obliged to prove them as a part of its priaiary burd~o. 
On the principle underlyings. 106 of the Evidence Act, the burden to establ1sh. 
the facts within special knowledge of a person lies on him and if· be fails to 
establish the facts within special knowledge of a penon lies on him anJ if .he 
fails to establish or explain those facts, an adveFe inference of facts may anse 
against him. which coupl~ with the presumoti~e. ~vidence 
a~duced . by 
the 
prosecution or the Department. would rebut the inittal prcs~m,ption of innocence 
in favour of that person. and in the result wouJd prove him guilty. The first 
oart-of the e11trv in the third column of clause 8 of s. 167 of the Sea Custoo 
Act regardin" the penalty of confiscation of the goods casts less ri'°rou-; burden 
on the prosecution a-; the order operates in rem and is enforced against the goods 
only [842 D; 841 D; E·F] 
(II) Although no direct evidence of the illicit importation of 
g<?<JdS 
~~s 
adduced by the Department the fact that the goods were of foreign ong1n 
couoled with the inference arlsin~ from the dubiou; conduct of Babhoothmull 
and Bhoormal could reasonably lead to the conclusion drawn by the Collector 
that the goods were smuggled a:oods. 
• 
834 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1974] 3 S.C.R, 
Jssardas Daulat Ram and ors. v. The Union of India and ors., [1962] Supp. 
A 
1. S.C.R. 355 and M/S. Kanungo and Co. v. Collector of Custo1111 (Ca/cuua) 
~ A.LR. 1972 S.C. 2136, relied upon. 
Amba Lal v. Union of India, [1961] 1, S.C.R. 933, and S/uzmbhu Nath Mehra 
v. State of Ajmer, [l!IS6] S.C.R. 1'9, distinguished . 
Bletch v. Archer 11774] Cowp. 63 at p.65 and R

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