RANCHHODDAS ATMARAM versus THE UNION OF INDIA.

Citation: [1961] 3 S.C.R. 718 · Decided: 03-02-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

r96r 
February 3. 
718 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
RANCHHODDAS ATMARAM 
v. 
THE UNION OF INDIA. 
(1961] 
(B. P. SINHA, C.J., s. K. DAS, A. K. SARKAR, 
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR and 
J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.) 
Sea Customs-Import of prohibited goods-Maximum Penalty-
Whether can be levied in excess of Rs. r,ooo/--Sea Customs Act, 
r878 (VIII of r878), ss. r9, 167, item No. 8. 
Item 8 of the schedule to s. 167, Sea Customs Act, 1878, 
. provides that any person concerned in the importation or expor-
tation of prohibited goods shall be liable to a penalty "not 
exceeding three times the value of the goods. or not exceeding 
one thousand rupees."' The petitioner was found to have imported 
gold of the value of Rs. 25,000/- and the Customs authorities 
imposed a penalty of Rs. 5.000/-. The petitioner challenged the 
validity of the order imposing the penalty on the ground that the 
maximum penalty that could be imposed under item 8 of s. 167 
was Rs. l,ooo/-. 
Held, that the orders imposing the penalty was valid. It is 
open to the Customs authorities to impose any of the alternative 
penalties provided though the amount of it exceeds the amount 
of the maximum in the other alternative. None of the previous 
decisions of the Supreme Court were authority for the proposi-
tion that the maximum penalty which can be imposed under 
item 8 of s. 167 is Rs. l,ooo/- as this question did not arise in 
those cases. On the plain language of the provision which was 
in the affirmative form it gave an option to the Customs authori-
ties to impose any one of the two penalties provided. The relevant 
words could not be read as "shall not be liable to a penalty 
exceeding three times the value of the goods, or exceeding one 
thousand rupees."' 
Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay [1953] S.C.R. 730, Babula I 
Amthalat Mehta v. The Collector of Customs [1957] S.C.R. rrro and 
F.N. Roy v. The Collector of Customs, Calcutta [1957] S.C.R. rr51, 
explained and distinguished. 
The Metropolitan Board of Works v. Steed (1881) L.R. 8 Q.B.D. 
445, referred to. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition No. 300 of 1960. 
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India. 
for enforcement of Fundamental Rights 
and 
Criminal Appeal No. 107of1958. 
3 S,C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
719 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated April 5, 1957, of the Bombay High Court 
in Criminal Revision Application No. 1100 of 1956. 
Por'Us A. Mehta, S. J. Sorabjee, S. N. Andley, J.B. 
Dada,chanji, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the 
petitioners. 
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-Genera! of India, H. R. 
Khanna, Y. S. Parmar and G. Gupta, for respondents 
(In Petn. No. 300of1960). 
N. C. Chatterjee and R. L. Aggarwal, for the appeJ. 
!ant. 
H. R. Khanna and R.H. Dhebar, for respondents (In 
Cr. A. No. 107 of 1958.) 
1961. February 3. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
Ran&Uodda.r 
Almaram 
v. 
Union of Indi• 
SARKAR, J.-These two matters have been heard 
S•rA., J. 
together as they raise a common question. One of 
these matters is a petition under Art. 32 of the Consti-
tution and the other, an appeal from a judgment of the 
High Court at Bombay. 
The petitioner and the appellant were found by the 
Customs authorities in proceedings under the Sea 
Custcms Act, 1878, to have imported goods in breach 
of s. 19 of that Act. The petitioner had without 
authority imported gold of the value of Rs. 25,000/-
and the appellant, steel pipes of the value of 
Rs. 1,28,182/-. The Customs authorities by indepen-
dent orders, imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the 
petitioner and of Rs. 25,630/- on the appellant for these 
offences, under item 8 of the schedule to s. 167 of the 
Act. The Customs authorities further confiscated the 
petitioner's gold under the same provision. There 
was no order of confiscation of the steel pipes for 
reasons to which it is unnecessary to refer. 
The appeal is against an order the result of which 
was to direct realisation of the penalty imposed on the 
appellant, by execution of a distress warrant. The 
petition challenges the validity of the order imposing 
the pecuniary penalty. Neither the petitioner nor the 
appellant, however, questions the decisions of the 
Customs authorities that they had been guilty of 
1961 
Ranehhotlda.s 
Almaram 
v. 
Union of India 
720 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1961] 
breach of s. 19 or that penalties could be imposed on 
them under item 8 in s. 167. The petitioner does not, 
further, challenge the order confiscatin
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.