LexRAM KIRPAL BHAGAT & ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
8
c
0
E
F
G
RAM KIRPAL BHAGAT & ORS.
v.
STATE OF BIHAR
November 13, 1969
233
[M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J., S. M. Suoo, G. K. MITTER, A. N. RAY
AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.]
Sea Customs Act 8 of 1878-lmports & Exports Act 18 of 1947-
Efject of s. 3(2) of Act 18 of 1947-Whether only s. 19 of Act 8 of
1878 attracted or other provisions also--Sec Customs Act whether appli-
cable to Santhal Parganas in Bihar-Land Custllm.1 Act
19 of 1924
ll'hether applicable to Sc:nthal Parganas-Pol1.'er of Gorernor under Art.
244 ,& Fifth Schedule of Constitution of India 1950 to extend laws to
sclie<luled areas-Cloves whether 'prohibited goods' under Act 18 of 1941
and 1111ports Control Order 1955-Whether dutiable under Indian Tariff
Act J 934-Power of Inspectors of Central Excise cniployed on Central
t.'xcise & Custon1s Intelligence ivork to 1nake crreJts
and seize ciol'es
under .1·. 173 & s. 178 of Sea Customs Act-Effect of notifications under
.1. 6 of Sea Customs Act, namely, Notification No.
69-Cus. dared
28
September 1951 and CBR Notification I. L. Cus. dmed 25th January,
1958 Sea Cust'oms Acts. 178A-Onus of proof u1rder.
H
One Nazir Mian \Vas arrested at Pakur Railwav Station in the Santhal
Parganas of Bihar hy two Inspectors and a constable belonging
to
the
Central Excise Department. · The Inspectors were employed on Central
Excise and Customs Prevention Intelligence work.
Two bags of cloves
on which duty was requi'rcd to be paid under the In1ports Control Order
1955, but had not been paid, were seized from the possession of Nazir
mian who had locked himself inside the latrine of a railway compartment
in the said station.
The arrest and seizure were effected under ss. 173
and 178 of the Sea Customs Act 1878. Helped by certain persons, Nazir
i\fian escaped and the cloves we:re also taken away.
In the scuffle the
said two Jnspectors were injured, one grievously. Alongwith four others
'.\iazir Mian was tried in connection with the incident. The charges against
the accused included the offences of offering resistance
to
the
lawful
apprehension of Nazir Mian and of causing hurt to a public servant in the
discharge of his official duties.
Four of the accused including the three
appellants were convicted by the trial Court. The High Court dismissed
their appeals.
In appeal by special leave against the judgment of the
High Court the appellants contended before this Court that : ( 1 ) The
Sea Customs Act. 1878 did not apply to the place of occurrence
and,
therefore, the arrest purporting to have beefi. made under ss. 173 and 178
of that Act and the seizure of the cloves\ were unlawful. (ii) The Land
Customs AcUl 924 did not apply to the place of occurrence and therefore
the Jnspecto
were not officers ot Customs who could invoke the autho·
ritv of the
, nd Customs Act. 1924 to arrest and
seize the appellant
~~zir Mian: (iii) The seizure of cloves was not authorised by s. 178 of
the Sea Customs Act 1878 nor was the arrest authorised under s. 173 of
the Sea Customs Act 1878; (iv) Section 178A of the Sea Customs Act
1878 eoulJ not apply because there was no notification to attract the
application of the said section.
HELD: (i) The Sea .Customs Act. 187R was applic:ibk ro the Santhal
P<.irg:anas by virtue of s. 3('!) of the Jn1porls & Export, Cctntrol /\er. J.94"7
1.r.su11 c.l./iO· 1r;
'\
'~
\' "· •'.
' - -
I'
·234
\
~ \ . ,,
-~~;: '
t
· S:uPR,EME _ coJRT
. ,
REPORTS
c__ ___ [1970]3-S.C.R. _
'
"'·hich.\h?d. been niadc applicable bY. th~ ~·overno~ to the-Santhal :arganas .
under B1har Regulation I of 1951.
- \
-
Sub-secti9n (2) of •: 3 of the Imports & Exports Control Act, 1947
enacts that goods to which ai;iy orde:r: under sub-section (I) applies shaU
be deemed to be goods of which the 1mpd.rt or export has been prohibited
under s. 19 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 and the second limb of sub-.
section (2) of-s. 3 is that all the provisions of that Act (The Sea Customs
Act, 1878) shall have effect accordingly. To accede to the contention on
behalf of the appellants that only s. · 19 of the Sea' Customs Act 1878 will
apply and no, other provisions of- the Sea Customs Act 18J8 will be
effective or operative \\'ill-be· not only to render the words '"and all the
provisions of that Act shall have effect" otiose but also nugatory. When
the statute enacts that all the provisions of that Act shall have effect
accordingly, it \\1ill be an erro'r to hold itExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.