MOHAMMAD SERAJUDDIN versus R. C. MISHRA

Citation: [1962] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 545 · Decided: 24-11-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.L. KAPUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

(l) S.C.R. SUPREME COUR'l' REPORTS 
545 
for reserving the coastline for future fi8hing wa~ the 
price of chanks, with which the respondent did its 
business. That• amount was paid to obtain an 
enduring asset in the shape of an exclusive right to 
fish, and the . payment was not related to · the 
chanks, which it might or might not have brought 
to the surface in this speculative business. The 
rights were not trasferable, but if they were and 
the firm had sold them, the gain, if any, would 
have been on the capital side and not a realising of 
the chanks as stock-in-trade, because none had 
been bought by the firm, and none would have been 
sold by it. 
In our opinion, the decision of the High 
Court, with all due respect, WllAI, therefore, errone-
ous, and the ear lier decision of the Full Bench of 
the same High Court was ri@ht in the circum1-
tanceH of the case. 
In the result, the appeal is allowed; but there 
will be no order about cost . 
. BY CoURT. 
In accordance with the majority 
judgment of the Court, the appeal is allowed, but 
there will be no order about costs. 
MOHAMMAD SERAJUDDIN 
fl, 
R. C. MISHRA 
(J. L. KAPUR, II. HlDAYATULLAH and J.C. SHAH, JJ.) 
Oustom•-Seizure t( documenu-Warrant · issued 
by 
Magi•trate-Ouatodf of 4ocume11t8-lf 
cuato1r1B 
aut!iorities 
•ntitled to-Facili11'8 for iMjHction-Sea Customs 'A.ct, 1878 
( 8 of 187 8), 8. 172,-0otle Ill Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act 5 
of 1898), 8. 96, Sclleds/e V 1'orm VIII. 
The respondent wao suspected of having exported 
dutiable goods in contraYendon of the Sea Customs Act and of 
having secreted docmnentl ia connection therewith in two 
prem iJes. An applicaP<>n -
made w the Chief Presidency 
1961 
Tlte Commissioner of 
Income-1t1:>:, /If odros 
v. 
K.T. M.T.M . 
.Abdul Ka)'Oom 
Hid•yatullah J. 
1961 
N ovnnb~r 24. 
JHJ 
.Uohd. s,,aju4di• 
v. 
R . C. Mis/I,. 
546 SUPREME COURl' REPORTS [1962] SUPP. 
Magistrate under s. 172 of the Act for issuing warranU to 
search the premise.• for the documenu. The warrants were 
issued and after search ~ large number of documents were 
seized by the Cunoms authorities. They then applied to the 
Magistrate to 
retain possession of the documents but he 
ordered that the documents would remain in the custody of 
the court and that the authorities would be given facilities to 
inspect them. After having inspected some of the documents 
the Customs authorities again applied to the Magistrate for 
custody of the documents and in the alternative for allot· 
ment of a separate room where they could inspect the docu-
ments in privacy, but the Magistrate rejected both the prayen. 
On revision the High Court held that the Customs authorities 
were entitled to the custody of the documents and directed 
that they be handed over to them immediately. 
Held, 
that the goods and documents seized under a 
warrant issued by a Magistrate undrr s. 172 of the Sea Cus-
toms Act must be produced before the Magistrate who issued 
the warrant and it is for him to decide how the goods and 
documents shall be disposed of. 
He may make them over ro 
the Customs authorities or keep them in his custody. 
The 
second paragraph of s. 
172 provides that a warrant issued 
under s. 172 shall have the same efl"ect as a search warrant 
is•ued under the law relating to criminal procedure. The 
form prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure requires 
the seized articles to be brought into court, and the Magist-
rate has jurisdiction to decide about their custody. 
The 
Magistrate's order that the documents should remain in his 
custody and be scrutinised in his court was thus legal. 
8. K. Sriba•tat'a v. GajaMnd ( 1956) 60 C. W. N. 1073, 
approved. 
C'aletdla Motor Cycle C'o. v. C'ollec.or of C'ualom• ( 1955) 
60 C. W. N. 67 and Collector of C'mtoms v. Calcutta Motor and 
Cycle Co. A. I. R. 1958 Cal. 682, not approved. 
C&llll.INAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Crimi· 
na.l Appeal No. 158 of 1960. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated 
July I, 1960, of the Calcutta High Court in Cr. 
Revision No. 500 of 1960. 
N. C. Chatterjee and P. K. Chatterjee, for the 
appellant. 
N. S. Bindra 
and T. M. Sen, 
for 
the 
respondent. 
t
-
___ ; 
I
(1) S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
547 
1961. November 24. The Judgment of the 
Court was deliered by 
HIDAYATULLAH, J.-This appeal is by certi-
ficate under Art. 134 ( 1) ( c) of the Constitution 
granted by the High Court of Calcutta against its 
judgment and other dated July 1, 1960. 
The 
appellant, Mohammad Se

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