LexHIRA H. ADVANI ETC. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H ': HIRA H. ADVANI ETC. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA August 13, 1969 [S. M. S!KRI, G. K. MITTER AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.] 821 Sea Customs Act1 s. 111-A-Statements under-Whether subject to s. 132 Evidence· Act (1 of 1872) and Art. 20(2) of Constitution of India, 195~ustoms Officer whether a court.-lncrimina.ting questions whether permissible in enquiry s. 171-A-Effect of ss. 4, 5 and 7 of Indian Oaths Act (10 of 1813)~ommon law principles whether applicable to matters covered by Evirlenct~· Act-Copy of premium debit note of insurance policy-Admissibilit)l under s. 114 (Ill. /)-Appraiser of customs--Giv- ing evidence as to v,alue of goods after making enquiries in market- Evidence u•hether inadmissible as hearsay. The appellants and two others were prosecuted on a complaint by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay for the offence of conspiracy and substantive offences punishable under s. 167(81) of the sea Customs Act and s. 5 of the lmports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The com- plaint was that all the accused knowingly and with intent to defrand the Government of India o'f duty payable on the import of goods and/or to evade the prohibitions and restrictions for the time being in force under or by virtue of the $ea Customs Act and of the Imports & Exports (Con- trol) Act, 194 7 relating to the said import entered into a conspiracy in Bombay and other places during the period commencing from August 1958 and August 1959 to acquire possession of and to be concerned in carrying, removing and concealing and otherwise dealing with prohibited and restricted goods .in very large quantities of high C.I.F. value. The Presidency Magistrate held in regard to the appellants that they were parties to a conspiracy as alleged by the prosecution and convicted them under s. 120.B Indian Penal Code read with s. 167(81) of the- Sea Customs Act and s. S of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The accused were also convicted o'f certain other charges individually framed against them. The High Court dismissed the appeal against the order of the Presidency Magistrate. The appellants were however, grant- ed a certificate undOJ'. Art. 134( 1 )( ~) of the Constitution. The main legal question that fell fot consideration by this Court was whether the state- ments made by ·the :accused-appellants before the Customs Officer were - inadmissible in evideiice in view- of the provisions df s. 171-A of the Sea Customs Act. s. 132 of the Evidence Act and Art. 20(3) of the Constitu- tion. Questions raised on behalf of the appellants in their individual cases regarding: the admi~bility of certain items of evidence and circumstances against them also ar~se for consideration. HELD : (1) A Customs Officer is not a court and therefore state- ments made before him do not attract the provisions of s. 132 of the Evidence Act or Art. 20(3) elf the Constitution. (a) If the Legislature intended that the inquiry under s. 171-A was to be considered a judicial proceeding not within the narrow limits therein specified but general)y. it could have used suitab!e words to express its intention. Although· thi~ Court gave a wider meaning to the expression 'judicial proceeding" in Lalji Haridas' case there is nothing in that judg .. ment to warrant a still wider interpretation of that definition. [831 CJ 822 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1970) I s.c.R. Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay, [1953] S.C.R. 730, 1'homas A Dana v. State of Punjab, (1959) Supp. 1 S.C.R. 274, 286 Jndt>China Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Additional Collector of Customs. [1964) 6 B.C.R. 594, referred to. Lalji Huridas v. Srute of Maharashtra, (1964] 6 S.C.R. 700, considered. (b) The Oat:Js Act had no application to the present case. Tho pre- amble to the Act shov;s that it was an Act to consolidate the law relating B to judicial oaths, affirmations and declarations. The argument that a customs officer received evidence within the meaning of s. 4 of the Act and therefore a person appearing before him was a witness under s. 5 could not be accepted. Section 7 of the Act shows that oaths under the Act had to be administered according to such forms as the High Court might prescribe. The Customs Officer have nothing to do \\'ith such forms and thcre was nothing on record to show that in th~ present case any oath was administered to the person making the statement. In C Maqbool Hu.rsain's case this Court
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.