LexHUKMA versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1963 T. Devadasan v. The Union <Jf India and Another Subba Rao /. 1963 August • 708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] These general observations made in the ·context of· admis- sions to college cannot, in my view, be applied in the case of a reservation of appointments in ·the matter of recruit- ment to a cadre of particular service. The doctrine of "destruction" of the fundamental right depends upon the· entire cadre strength and the percentage reserved olit of that strength. Further, the expression used in the observa· tions, viz., "generally" and "broadly'', show that the· ob- servations were intended only to be a workable guide but not an inflexible rule of law even in the case of admis-· sions to colleges. I cannot, therefore, hold that in the present case the· provision made by the State was not for reservation but for a purpose not sanctioned by the Constitution. In the re- sult, the writ petition is dismissed with costs. ORDER BY COURT In accordance with majority. opinion .. the Writ Peti- tion is allowed with. costs . . BUKMA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (M. HIDAYATULLAH AND K. C. DAS GUPTA, JJ.) Sea Customs-Seizure of Gold-furisdictian of" Custom; 'Offi- cer-"Adjoining", meaning of-Proof. ~·.of ·mens ·rea-Sea · Customs Act,·1878 (8 of 1878), ss. 167(81), 178-A-Land Customs Act, 1924 (19 of 1924), els. (e)(g), of"· 2, 3~.Central Excises Rules, ,1944, r. 2(ii)(A)(i). . The appellant was found carrying 286 tolas of gold in running train between Kerla and P-ali stations .by th~ Sub Inspe~tor of Bar- mer District: After the go1d was seized, crir~inal prOceedings were instiNied against the 'appellant. The tri?l collrt acquitted the· ap- pellant but the High ·Court convitted him. ·The appellan~'s case in this Court .was that.·the· seizure .9£ the gold from -him had not been proved; that the Sub-Inspector was not ·a~ :CU§toms Officer for the place where the seizure was made, and so the - 4-S.C.R SUPREME COURT REPORTS 7(J) seizure was not under the Land Customs Act ; and that, in any view of the case, the prosecution had failed to prove the necessary mens rea in the appellant. Section 3 of the Land Customs Act authorises the Central Government to appoint by notification one person to be the Col- lector of Land Customs for any area adjoining a foreign frontier and specified in the notification. The section also authorises the Central Government to appoint such other persons as it thinks fit to be customs officer for the same area by a similar notification. The relevant notification issued was as follows:- " 1. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (I) of section 3 of the Land Customs Act 1924 (19 of 1924) read with the notification of the Government of India -in the late Finance Deptt. (Central Revenues) No. 5444, dated !st December 1924, the Central Board of Revenue hereby appoints for the areas adjoining, the Land Customs Frontier separatiq.g West Pakistan from India, the officers of the Government of Rajasthan specified in the Schedule hereto annexed, to be land Customs Officers within the jurisdiction of the Collector of Land Customs Delhi." "The Schedule." • • • • • • • "All officers of the Rajasthan Civil Police and the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary of and above the rank of Head Constable posted in the Districts of Barmer, Bikancr, Ganganagar, Jaisal- mer and Jalore in the State of Rajasthan." Held, that tlie word "adjoining'' in the above notification means the whole compact block consisting of the State of Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir and Rajasthan and the Union territories of Hima- chal Pradesh and Delhi as one area adjoining the West Pakistan Frontier, and that for this entire area one person was appointed the Collector of Land Customs. Every officer, therefore, mentioned in the Schedule would be a Customs Officer not for any particular District mentioned in the Schedule but for the whole area which forms the jurisdiction of the Collector of Land Customs Delhi. Since in the instant case, the Sub-Inspector was an officer men- tioned in the Schedule, he would be an officer for the entire area which formed the jurisdiction of the Collector of Land Customs Delhi, including the place where the seizure was made and wa~ therefore, competent to make the seizure. ' Held, further, that on the evidence the story of the re- covery of gold from the appeilant was true, and that the circum- stances, manner, quantity and the form in whi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.