GIAN CHAND AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1962] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 364 · Decided: 13-11-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

116. 
Nottmbn 13. 
•• 
364 8VP.kEME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. 
GIAN CHAND AND OTHERS 
t'. 
THE STATE OF PUNJAB. 
(P. B. GAJENDRAOADKAR, A. K. SARKAR, 
K. N. WANr:aoo, K. C. DAs GUPTA and 
N. RAJAOOPALA AYYANOAR, JJ.) 
Smuggled Gooda-Good• Seiu.d by lht polic.-Iklirtry 
of goods to c.,.tom• autharilies-Proaecution far of!<nc. unckr 
Sea Cusl071111 Act-Onus of proof-Goods, if .eized under the 
Act-"Seized", meaning of-8ea Custom.a Act, 1878 (8 of 
1878), "· 167 (81), 178, 178A, 180. 
On receipt of information thal some smugglers were 
transporiing gold from Amrilsar inio Jullundur, 1he police 
made a raid of the house of the first appellanl in Jullundur 
and in 1he course of 1he search cerlain bars of gold were found 
on the person of some of the inmates of the house and in the 
house itself. The gold found was seized by the police and 
the appellants were proseculed on a charge of receiving 
stolen property. The case however was not proceeded with 
and, in the meantime, the customs authorities contacted the 
police and on the order of the Magistrate on an application 
under s. 180 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, made by 
them the gold bars w.re delivered to them. 
Proceedings 
were taken by the Collector of Customs for coufiscalion 
of the gold under s. 
167 \8) of the Act, and the appel-
lants 
were prosecuted for an offence under s. 167 (81) 
of the .\ct on the ground that the gold was smuggled and 
that the appellants did the acts spcciJied in that section 
knowing that the gold was of that character. The Magistrate 
took the view that •· l 78A of the Act was applicable to the 
case so that the burden of proving that lhe gold was not smug· 
gled could be laid on 1he appellants. The question was 
whelhcr the possession obiained by the customs authorities 
under s. 180 of the Act was such that the goods could be 
treated as that seized under the Act within the meaning of 
s. l 78A of the Act. 
H.ld, that the taking posaession of the good• by the 
customs authorities when they were delivered to them under 
s. 180 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, did not amount to a 
seizure under the Act within the meaning of s. 1 78A of the 
Act. 
A seizure unc1er the authority of law involved a dcpri· 
vation of po•scssio11 and when the police seized the goods 
the appellants lost possession which vested in the police so 
(1) s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
365 
that when the possession was transferred to the cmtoms 
authorities by virtue of the provisions in s. JS(} there was no 
fresh seizure under the Act. Accordingly, s. 178!\ wa' not 
appllicable to the case. 
The tcnn "seized" in s. l 78A means "taken possession 
of contrary to the ·wishes of the owner of property". 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JUR1snrnT10N: Criminal 
I 
Appeal No. 194 of 1960. 
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment 
and Order dated January 20, 1960, of the Punjab 
High Court in Criminal Revision No. 1485 of 
1959. 
Porus A. Mehta, J. B. Daclachanji, 0. O. Jfathur 
and Ravinder Narain, for the appellants. 
H. R. Khanna and P. D. Menon, for the res· 
pondent. 
1961. November 13. The Judgment of the 
Court was delivered by 
AYYANGAR,J.-Thethree appellants were con· 
victed by the First Class Magistrate of Jullundur of 
an offence under s. 167 (81) of the Sea Customs Act 
for "having acquired possession of smuggled gold 
and for carrying,. keeping and concealing the said 
gold with intent to defraud the Government know-
ing that the gold had been smuggled into India 
from a foreign country and that no duty had been 
paid thereon,'' and were sentenced to terms of 
imprisonment. · Appeals were filed by the accused 
to the Sessions Judge, Jullundur but the convic-
tions were upheld though tho sentence was reduced· 
in the case of the third appellant. A ·revision 
~tition · preferred therefrom to the High Court of 
Punjab was dismissed and thereafter the appellants 
obtained leave from this Court under Art. 136 of 
the Constitution and filed the appeal which is now 
before us. 
A few faca are. aeceaaary to be llC&ted to 
ap.preoiate.the p"int ~d 
for decillioo. ··The City 
Inspector of Police, Jullundur is atated to hAT• 
1961 
Gi11n Olua11J 
, 
v. 
Th, Sia" of Punjab 
1911 
Gian Chand 
v. 
TM Store of /'ufijob 
.4 JJOntor J. 
366 SUPREME CX>URT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. 
,_ 
received information that some smu~lers were on 
the point of transporting gold from Amritsar into 
Jullundur and at about mid-night on July 16, 1958 
further information that some of these had actually 
oome ~

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