LexPUKHRAJ versus D.R. KOHLI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
196! March 16. 866 SUPRE:IIE COURT REPORTS (1962] SuPP. PUKHRAJ v. D.R. KOHLI (J. L. KAl'UR, P. B. G,1.JE~llJ:AGAllJ\,1H and T. L. VE>;KATARA)!A AJYA!t, JJ.) S1nugylr.rl Gold----St-izur(;-/)re.~untpfion of icing s1wuyylcil -llea.sonalile l1elicf, tl'/1cn justifie:d-(,'onfi~~cation-Lu.Jtlfily oj- If iniporter alone Z,:rz};ff fn CJ)nfiscation of gold-Sea (Ju.,toms Acf,JS7S (VIII of 1878), ss. !!!, /1;7(8), 178, 17SA-Foreiyn /;'xchange Reg7t/aiion Act, 19-17 ( 7 of J.'147). ss. 8(1), 23A. l'he appellant, a golds1nith, ,vhilc tra\'elling in a train fron1 Calcutta was searched and fou11cl to be in posscs:iiun of gold weighing 290.6 tolas val11ecl at Rs 2~,835. The gold was seized as it was reasonahly believed to be s1nuggled gold. After ~ervice of a ::.ho\Y COluse notice and after due enquiry the Co\lector passed an order for the confiscation of the goltl under s. 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act. The appellant contended that the pre:,111nption undtr s. I 78A of the Act could not be raised a5 on the facts of this case 1here could be no reasonable belief that the gold was smuggled gold, that the gold could not l>c confiscated as the appellant was not the importer thereof and that •- 167 (8) was n<1t applic•ble to the facts of the case. Held, that the order of confiscation of the gold was validly and properly made. Section l 78A of the Act imposed the burden of proving that the gold was not smuggled gold on the appellant if it was seized untler the Act in the rea~onablc belief that it wa1 smuggled gold. '!'hough the qu~stion \Vhcther there was a reasonable belief or not v.·as ju~ticiable, the Court \vas not sitting in appeal over the dcch.inn of the officer and all it could consider \Va." whether there \vere ground \Vhich prima. facie justified the reasonable belief. The facts that a large quantity of :;old v.·as recovcrccl fro1n the appellant. that the authorities had precise inforn1atio11 ah<>11t the appellant a11cl that he \\'as travelling \\'ithout a ticket -.vcrc sufficient to justify the reasonable brlief. Section 167(H) of the S•a Customs Act prodded for the confiscation of any goods th(: in1portation of "·hich \vas pro- hibited or restricted if thrv \vr:rc iiuµortcrl co11trary to the prohibitio1a or restriction. F~r the collfi~catio11. of the guod~ it was not required that they sho~1ld he neccs.;;arily found With the person concerned. \Vith their in1portation. ' ' 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 867 Under s. 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, the Government of India issued a notification in 1948 which prohibited the bringing into India of gold from outside except with the general or special permission of the Reserve Bank. Section 23A of this Act provided that the lestrictions imposed under s.8 thereof shall be deemed to have been imposed uncle~ s.19 of the Sea Cu~tom~ Act. Thus the 1948 notification had the force of a notificat10n under s. 19 of the Sea Customs Act and gold imported in contravention thereof was liable to be seized under s.178 and rendered the gold liable for proceedings under s. 167(8) .. Since the gold was smuggled gold in view of the statutory presumption under s.178A it was properly confiscated under s. 167(8). CrvIL APPELLA'l'E JuRISDICUON : Civil Appeal No. 511 of 1960. Appeal from the judgment and order dated March 20, 1959, of the Bombay High Court at Nagpur in Special Civil Application No. 322 of 1958. A. S . .f3obde and Ganpat Rai, for the appellant. G, 0. Mathur and P. D. Menon, for the respon- dents. 1962. March 15. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 196S Pul:hraj v. I D, R Kohli GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.-On the 26th July, 1958, Gojendragadkor J, the Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur, pitssed an order directing absolute confiscation of five bars of gold weighing 290.6 Tolas found in the possession of the appellant Pukhraj and imposing upon him a personal penalty of Rs. 25,000/- under s. 167 (8) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 read with s. 19 of the said Act and s. 23-A of the Foreign Exchange Regu- lation Act, 1947. Aggrieved by the said order, th.e appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court of. Bombay at Nagpur under Art". 226 and 227 of the Constitution on September 15, 1958. By this petition, the appellant claimed a writ of Certiorari or other appropriate writ or order quashing the impugned order. It was urged by him in support of his petition, inter alia, that s. l
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.