HARIVANSH LAL MEHRA versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [1971] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 113 · Decided: 19-03-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.K. MITTER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

BARIVANSH LAL VORA 
v. 
STATE OF MABAJlilB'I'li 
March 19, 1971 
[G. K. MITTER, K. S. ffEGDE AND P. JAGANMOHAN R.l!ooy, JJ.J 
Prevention of Corruption Act 2 of 1941, s. 5(2) read with s. 5(1) (d)-
Official sending goods from Goa to Bombay afttr Goa had btcom1 Part of 
Indian territory w)thout payment of custonu duty-No offence i1 com-
mitted bl!cause no 'customs duty was le11iable-Duty can bt levied only by 
law and not by admini'strative instruction1. 
!be appellant was convicted of a charge under s. 5(2) read with s. 5 
(I) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The allegation against him 
was that by utilising his position as a government' servant he sent variou1 
articles such as Radios, Transistors, Qothes etc., from Goa to Bombay 
without paying customs duty thereon. 
Against tho order of the High 
Court maintaining his conviction appeal was .filed in this Court. The que1-
tion for consideration was whether any customs duty was lcviable on goods 
alleged to have been sent by the appellant to Bombay from Goa which 
when the goods were sent, had become a parl of India. 
HELD: Goa was liberated on December 20, 1961. The twelfth am-
endment to the Constitution which received the assent of the President on 
27th March 1962 made Goa a part of India. 
All territories that this 
country may acquire in whatever manner become a para of India in view 
of Art. 1(3) (c). 
[115G-116C] 
According to tho prosecution the aoods complained of were all senl 
from Goa to Bombay after March 27, 1962. 
There was no statute or 
statutory rule to show that any customs duty bad been imposed on tho 
goods transferred from Goa to other parts of India after December 20, 1961. 
The trial court and the High Court wronaly held that certain customs 
duties were Ieviable because of some administrative instructions. No tax 
or duiy can be levied or collected except by authority of law. 
Moreover 
no administrative instructions were produced before the court, privilege 
being strangely claimed for them on the ground that they were confidential 
documents. [116C-F] 
The notification issued in 1950 declaring Goa to be a foreign territory 
and thus bringing the exports from that country to India within the purview 
of the Land Customs Act, could not continue to have legal effect after Goa 
became a part of India. for it then ceased to be a foreign territory, [I 16G] 
Section S of the Indian Tariff Act 1934 as it stood in 1950 empowered 
the Government to declare any territory outside India as a foreign terri-
tory for the purpose of that provision. That provision did not e1npower 
the government to declare any part of India as a foreign territory. Once 
Goa became a part of India tho Government was incompetent to declare 
that terrftory as a foreign territory. Nor did it appear that any ouch decla-
ration was m"!le after December 20, 1961. [117C-D) 
There was thus no legal basis for holding that the appellant bad utili-
sed ~is official position to evade customs duty. His appeal muot accord-
ingly be allowed. [1171!-0] 
8-1 S. C. India/71 
!U 
• 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
114 
SUPREM!! COURT REPORTS 
[1971] SUPP. s.c.R. 
A. 
CRIMJNAL APPELLATE JUR1so1cnoN : Criminal Appeal No. 80 
of 1967. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated April 17, 1967 
of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1210 of 1965. 
A.S.R. Chari, M. J. Mirchandani, K. K. Jain, H. K. Puri and 
B 
R. N agratnam, for the appellant. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
P. K. Chatterjee, B. D. Sharma and S. P. Nayar, for the res-
pondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Hegde, 1.--The appellant and one R. B. Mathur were tried 
before the learned Special Judge for Greater Bombay under various 
charges including a charge of conspiracy. 
Mathur was acquitted 
ood the appeal against his acquittal was unsuccessful. The appel-
lant was also acquitted of all charges excepting a charge under 
Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Cor-
ruption Act 
For that offence he was sentenced to suffer rigor-
ous imprisonment for two years and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000, in 
default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for four months. 
The substance of the charge under which he was convicted is that 
he by utilising his position as a Government servant sent various 
articles such as Radios, Transistors, Clothes etc., from Goa to 
Bombay without paying customs duty. He was also held guilty 
of sending his personal articles in the vehicles engaged by the 
postal department without paying

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