GAJANAN VISHESHWAR BIRJUR versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 466 · Decided: 12-07-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL, B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
GAJANAN VISHESHWAR BIRJUR 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
JULY 12 , 1994 
[S.C. AGRAWAL AND B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.] 
Customs Act, 1962:-Sectoin Ill (d)-Confiscation of books-Books 
imported are writings, speeches and works of Mao, besides works of Man:, 
Engels and Lenin-Confiscation orders passed holding that import of said 
C books in violation of Notification No. 77 dated 22nd September, 1956-0rders 
devoid of any findings in tenns of Notification No. 77-Absence of specific 
violation of any particular clause even in show cause notices-Orders of con-
fiscation-Held : Not lnvali~'Constitution of India, 1950-·Arts 19(1)(c) 
and 19(1)(g). 
D 
E 
F 
G 
The petitioner, a distributor and publisher of Marxist literature, 
imported books comparising mainly the writing of Mao. Books were con-
fiscated holding that the import of the said books was in violation of the 
Notification No. 77 dated 22nd September, 1956. Petitioners challenged the 
validity of confiscation of books in this writ petition. 
Allowing the writ petition, this court 
HELD : 1.1. The confiscation orders are totally bald and devoid of 
any findings in terms of Notification No.77. The order does not say which 
of the books fall within the mischief of which clause of the Notification. It 
is not as if the Notification prescribes these books by name, i.e. by title. It 
only says that import of books containing matter of the nature mentioned 
therein is prohibited. The books imported are writing, speeches and works 
of Mao, besides the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin. If they were 
proposed to be confiscated, it was obligatory upon the authority to say 
which book contained words of the nature mentioned in the Notification. 
Even the show cause notices did not specify which particular clause of 
Notification No.77 was violated by which imported book. [470-H; 471-A·B) 
1.2. The order of confiscation affects not only the fundamental right 
H of the petitioner to carry on his occupation bad business but also his 
466 
G.V. BIRJUR v. U.0.l. [JEEV AN REDDY, J.] . 
467 
rundamental right or freedom or speech and expression (including his A 
freedom to propagate. the thought and ideas which he thinks are in the 
best interest or this nation), In such as case, it was required of the officer 
to point out which book contains works, signs or visible representation 
which are likely to incite or encourage any person to resort to violence or 
sabotage for the purpose of overthrowing or under mining the government B 
established by law in !ndia or in any state thereof or its authority in any 
area or that they attract any of the other clauses in Notification No.77. 
Absence of such specification both in the show cause notices and the final 
orders must be held to initiate the action taken. [471-G-H; 472-A-B) 
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 2 SCR 621 and Oudh Sugar C 
Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR (1970) SC 1070, referred to. 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C} No. 598 of 
1979. 
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. 
A.K. Pande for the Petitioner. 
Joseph Palli Vella and C.V. Sobba Rao for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B.P. JEEV AN REDDY, J. The validity of confiscation of books 
imported by the petitioner from Peoples Republic of China is questioned 
D 
E 
in this writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. The 
petitioner is a distributor and publisher of Marxist literature. In the year F 
1978, he imported books comprising mainly the writing of Mao Zedong (in 
both English and Indian languages). The books were imported by sea 
through Bombay and Calcutta Ports. They were seized at the said ports. 
Show cause notices were issued by the Assistant Collectors of Customs of 
both the places calling upon the petitioner to show cause within seven days G 
why the seized books be not confiscated for violating Notifications No.25 
dated 9th March, 1960, No. 77 dated 22nd September, 1956, No. 158 dated 
26th November, 1969 and No.186 dated 1st December, 1962 under Section 
111( d) of the Customs Act, 1962. As many as sixteen show cause notices 
were issued by both the authorities put together. On receipt of show cause 
notices, the petitioner wrote to them protesting abol!t the mere seven days' H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS IJ994J SUPP. I S.C.R. 
time giYcn to hin1 for filing his explanation. He \Vanted atleast a month's 
time for submitting his explanation. He submitted further tha
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.