RADHA KISHAN BHATIA versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1965] 2 S.C.R. 213 · Decided: 23-11-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
RADHA KISHAN BHATIA 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND OIBERS 
November 23, 1964 
[K. SUBBA RAo, RAGHUBAR DAYAL AND N. RAJAGOPALA 
AYYANGAR, JJ.] 
Sea Customs Act, 1878 (Act 8 of 1878), s. 167(8)-Person concerned 
in illegal importation of go/d,-who is-Inference from possession of gold 
held to be smuggled-Positive finding as to being concerned in illegal impor-
tation, necessity for recording. 
A number of gold bars held to be smuggled were recovered from the 
person of the appellant. The Collector of Central Excise and Land Cus-
toms ordered the confiscation of the gold and imposed a penalty on the 
appellant under s. 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act (Act 8 of 1878). The 
appellant's writ petition challenging the above order was allowed by a 
single Judge of the Punjab High Court on the ground that the Collector 
had not recorded a finding that the appellant was concerned in the act of 
smuggling gold into the country. On Letters Patent Appeal the appellate 
Bench set aside the order of the single Judge and dismissed the writ petition, 
whereupon the appellant came to the Supreme Court by special leave. 
It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the finding that the 
smuggled gold was recovered from the person of the appellant was not 
sufficient in itself to justify the conclusion that the appellant \Vas concerned 
in committing the offence of importing gold illegally. It was also urged 
that Collector had not recorded any finding that the appellate was con-
cerned in such importation. 
HELD: (i) The person who can be penalised under s. 167(8) is one 
who is in any Way 'concerned' in the commission of the offence of brino-
ing into India or taking out of the country goods with respect to whiCh 
certain prohibitions· or restrictions exist. 
The expression 'concerned. in 
any such offence' in the penalty part of s. 167(8) may include the person 
who be 'interested' or 'involved' or 'engaged' or 'mixed up' in the com-
mission of the offence referred to in the first column of s. 167(8). [216 E; 
217 A-Bl 
(ii) Such 'concern' of the appellant in the commission of the offence 
must be at a stage prior to the completion of the offence of illegal impor-
tation of gold into the country. 
The offence of importation is completed 
when the goods have crossed the customs frontier as is clear from the 
provisions of ss. 18 and 19. Once the gold has been imported any subse-
quent interest etc. in the smuggled gold cannot bring in the person showing 
such interest etc. within the purview of s. 167(8) for the purpose of 
imposition of the penalty. 
[217 B-D] 
(iii) The mere finding of fact recorded by the Collector of Customs 
in this case about the smuggled gold being recovere.d from the person of 
the apoellant was not sufficient to conclude that the appellant was 'con-
cerned' in the illegal importation of the smuggled gold into the country and 
therefore liable for penalty under s. 167(8) of the Act. 
[217 D-E] 
Pukhraj Jain v. D.R. Kohli, I.L.R. 1959 Born. 1771, Gopal Mayaji v. 
T. C. Seth, A.T.R. 1960 Rom. 478 and Addi. Collector of Customs v. Sita-
ram, A.I.R. 1962 Cal. 242, approved. 
214 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1965) 2 S.C.R. 
(iv) A finding of fact by the Collector of Customs that a person is 
in possession of smuggled goods does not necessarily imply that the. Col-
lector had considered the question of the person's being 'concerned' in the 
commission of the offence of illegal importation of goods. 
It is true that 
an omission to record a formal finding to this effect may not be fatal to 
the imposition of penally by the Collector, but the order must show that 
he had considered this aspect of the matter. 
The order should cicarly 
indicate what matter he had considered to have a bearing on the question 
of the person's being concerned in illegal importation of the goods, and 
why he had concluded therefrom that the person 'vas so concerned and 
therefore liable to pay th·o penalty under s. 167(8) of the Act. [219 C-D; 
218 B-C] 
. 
Balbir Singh v. Collector of Ce;itral Excise & Land Customs, New Delhi, 
A.LR. 1960 Punj. 488, referred to. 
A 
B 
Union of India, v. Jagdish Singh, I.LR. 1962 (1) Punj. 369, disapprov-
C 
ed. 
CIVIL APPELLATE Juruso1cnoN : Civil Appeal No. 777 of 
1962. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated 
March 6, 1962 of the Punjab High Court (Circuit Bench) at 
Delhi in L.P. Appeal No. 120-D of 1960. 
B. D. Sharma, for the appellant. 
D. R. Prem, V. D. Mahajan a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.