SACHIDANANDA BENERJI, ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS versus SITARAM AGARWALA AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1966] 2 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 05-10-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

.. ,.. 
A 
SACHIDANA~DA BENERJI, ASSISTANT COLLECTOR 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
OF CUSTOMS 
v. 
SITARAM AGARW ALA AND ANOTHER 
October 5, 1965 
[K. SUBBA RAo, K. N. WANCHOO, J. C. SHAH. S. M. SlKRI AND 
V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.] 
Sea Customs Act (8 of 1878), s. 167(8!)-Liability of person other 
than importer-"Concerned in or dealing with goods", n1ea11i11g of. 
The !st respondent had gone to' the 2nd respondent after previous, 
arrangement with him, with a large sum of money to purchase gold which 
was known to them lo be smuggled and lo have been imported into India 
against the restrictions impo~ed on the import of gold: The police inter-
vened, recovered the gold and arrested them. 
The gold was confiscated 
under s. 167 ( 8) of the Sea Customs Act',, 1878. 
The respondents were 
prosecuted for an offence under s. 167(81) and they were convicted by 
the trial court. 
On appeal the High Court acquitted the !st respondent 
because it was of the view that as the !st respondent merely attempted to 
purchase the gold it could not be said that he was concerned in dealing 
with the smuggled gold within the meaning of the section. The High Court 
also acquitted the 2nd r~pondent because it held that before a person 
could be convicted under s. 167(81), it must be shown that he was 
either a direct importer or concerned in some way in the import of the 
sn1uggled article, 
and that the ~ection did not include in its scope a 
person who subsequently obtained the smuggled goods and then dealt with 
them, though the smuggled goods themselYes might be li.1hlc to confis-
cation. 
In appeal to this Court, 
HELD (per Wanchoo, Shah, Sikri and Ramaswami, JJ.) : 
(i) The 
High Court \Vas in error in holding that simply because the purchase \Vas 
not complete the 1st respondent was not concerned in dealing \vith the 
smuggled gold which was with 1he 2nd respond·ont. [ 14 D] 
T'ne \VOrds "in any \Vay concerned in or in any manner <lcalirig \Vilh 
any goods" in the section, are of very \.\'ide import. 
The words 
"con~ 
<.:crnetl in" nu.:an ."interested in, involved in, 1nixcd up with", 
\Vhile the 
\vords "deal with" n1ean "to have something to do with, to concern one 
self, to treat, to make arrangement, to negotiate \Vith respect to so1ne~ 
thing." 
Therefore, when a person enters. into some kind of transaction 
or attempts to enter into so-me kind of transaction with respect to prohibited 
goods, and it is clear that the act \Vas done with some kind of prior 
arrangement or agreement, it must be held that such a person is concerned 
in dealing wi<h prohibited goods. (13 A-B; HJ 
(ii) On the language of the section. it applies not only to an actual 
smuggler or a person concerned in smuggling but also to all others who 
may be concerned with smuggled goods after the smuggling is over provid-
ed they knew that the goods were smuggled into the country in spite of 
a prohibition or restriction, or they knew that the duty thereon had not 
been paid. It follows that the !st respondent had the necessary knowledge 
an\! intent to evade the prohibition or the restriction even though he dealt 
2 
SUPREME 
COURT REPORTS 
[1966) 2 S.C.R. 
with the gold after the smuggling was over and was not in any way 
A 
concerned with the actual smuggling. He would therefore be guilty under 
the section. The 2nd respondent wa• also guilty under the section inas-
much as he was dealing with prohibited or restricted goods and had the 
necessary knowledge and intent as required under the section. [21 B, C, E] 
If the intention of the legislature was that the person guilty under 
s. 167(81) could only be a person who was concerned in some way or 
other with the actual importation or exportation it would have been easy 
B 
for it to use the same words as were used in the first part of s. 167(8) but 
it bas not done so. Whats. 167(81) requires is ,that the person who comes 
inter alia into possession of prohibited goods must know that there is son1e 
prohibition in force with respect thereto. 
But before he is found guilty 
it bas further to be shown that he intends to evade the prohibition. Where 
the case is not of prohibition but of duty, the person accused under the 
section must be shown to know that the duty has not been paid and also 
to have the intention to defraud the government of the duty payable on 
C 
the goods. So long as the duty is payable and has not been paid or so long as 
the prohibition or restriction remains in force, 
any person acquiring 
possessio

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