SHEIKH MOHD. OMER versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA & ORS.

Citation: [1971] 2 S.C.R. 35 · Decided: 04-09-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. HEGDE · 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)

~ . 
• 
-----: 
A 
8 
c 
D. 
E 
F 
H 
35 
SHEIKH MOHD. OMER 
v. 
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CALCU1TA I: ORS. 
September 4, 1970 
[K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ ] 
C11.H01ns Act, 1962, s. l l l (d)-"Any prOhibition" if includes restric-
tion\-Afare i111ported for brecdinR. if pet aninzal. 
The appellant, a breeder of horse' imported into India a mare "Jury 
Maid ... for purpose of breeding. 
The customs authorities objected on the 
ground that the mare had ·been imported in contravention of the pro-
visions of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act. 1947 and confiscated 
the mare. 
On the questions, (i) whether the mare was a "'pet animal" 
\\'ithin the meaning of that expression in the notification dated January 2. 
I 961 ·issued by the Government and therefore exempt as personal baggage 
and (ii) whether the expression .. prohibition" contained in s. 11 I ( d) of 
the Custom. Act. I962 includes prohibition of imports coupled with a 
p0\1,:cr to pennit importation under certain conditions, 
HELD: (il The mare .. Jury Maid" was not a 'pet animal'. 
A pet 
is .. any animal tamed _and fondled". 
There was no evidence to show 
that jury maid was tamed or treated with fondness by the appellant. He 
obtained that· animal on lease for certain specified purpose and in respect 
of that animal he had only a business connection. 
(ii) The expression .. any prohibition" in s. ll l (d) of the Customs 
Act. I 962. include-s restrictions. 
Merely because s. 3 of the Imports and 
EX ports (Control) Act, 194 7, uses three different expressions "prohibit-
ing"'. "restricting" er .. otherwise ~controlling," the amplitude of the word 
"anv prohibition in s. 111 (d) of the Act cannot be cut down. 
"Any 
prohihition" means every prohibition and restriction is one type of pro· 
hibition. 
From item ([) of Sch. I Part IV to Imoort Control Order, 
1955. it is clear that im.port of living animals of air sorts is prohibited. 
But certain exc,ptions are provided for. 
But none the less the prohi-
bition continues. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1645 of 
1966. 
Appeals from the Judgment and order dated February 7, 1966 
of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal No. 114 of 1965. 
A. N. Sinha and P. K. Mukherjee, for the appellant. 
8. Sen and S. P. Nayar, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was .delivered by 
Hegde, J. In this appeal by certificate two questions of law 
arise namely (I) whether on. the facts of this case the mare "Jury 
Maid" can be considered as a "pet animal" within the meaning of 
that expression in the notification issued by the Government of 
-"-
36 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1971 J 2 S.C.R 
India, Ministry of Commerce and Industries, Import Trade Control 
Public Notice No. l-I.T.C.(PN)/61 dated 2nd January 1961 and 
(2) whether the expression "prohibition" contained ins. Ii l(d) of 
the Customs Act 1962 (which will hereinafter be referred to as lhe 
Act) includes prohibition of imports coupled with a power to per-
mit importation under certain conditions. 
The facts relevant for the purpos~ of deciding the jlOints in 
issue are not many. 
They may now be stated. 
The appellant, 
.Sheikh Mohd. Omer, as found by the High Court was a deaier in 
horses especially"in racing horses. He was breeding hmses oul ol 
mares owned by him. 
He owned two stallions by name "Pida" 
and "Rontgen". He claimed to have had a considerable reputa-
tion as race horse own~r and for racing with horses bred by him-
self. 
He appears to have won several prizes awarded for horse 
races. In September, 1964, the appellant went to Europe. 
Whil~ 
he was in Switzerland he received a letter from M/s. British Blood-
stock Agency Ltd., lqndon informing him that one of its clients 
was interested in obtainif)g a foal by stallion "Pieta" from the said 
client's Brood Mare. 
After some correspondence it WP.s agreed 
that the Glasgow Stud Farm would lease a brown English rnare to 
the aopellant which would be shipped to India and would be kept 
there "pending her producing two foals by the appellant's breeding 
race horse "Pieta" after which the mare will be return.:d to Englai;d 
with on:? foal. 
The appellal't returned to Calcutta on November 
7, 1964 by air. 
At the Duin Dum Airport he gave a declaration 
showing that his seven uhaccompanied baggages will follow him 
by sea r.r by air. Eventu11lly, "Jury Maid" was shipped to Calcutta 
by s.1. 'Chinkoa" which reached Calcutta port on December 25, 
1964. When the appellant tried t-0 take deliv
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.