STATE OF BOMBAY (NOW GUJARAT) versus MEMON MAHOMED HAJI HASAM

Citation: [1967] 3 S.C.R. 938 · Decided: 05-05-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. BACHAWAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF BOMBAY (NOW GUJARAT) 
v. 
MEMON MAHOMED HAJI HASAM 
May 5, 1967 
[R. S. BACHAWAT, J. M. SHELAT AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.] 
Juncgarh Sta Customs Act II of S. Y. 1998-Seizure under said Act 
of some vehicles belonging to 
respondent-After being kept for some 
years outside a police station vehicles sold by order obtained under 1. 
523 Cr. Pc C. as unclaimed propertr-Revenue Tribunal In appeal order-
ing return of vehicles lo relf{londent-Suit by rellpondent to recover value 
of veliicles-Liability of State. 
Two trucks and a station wagon belonging to the respondent were 
seized by tht customs authorities of the State of Junagarh under 
the 
provisions of the Juliagarh State Sea Customs Act of S.Y. 1998. The 
Junagrah State was merged into the. United States of · Saurashtra and 
after furth<r changes became part of the present Gujarat State. 
The 
respondent's appeal ·against the aforesaid seizure of his goods succeeded 
before the Revenue Tribunal which ordered the 
return of the said 
vehicles to the respondent. 
When however he applied for the return 
of the vehicles he was informed that .tl\ey had been disposed. of under an 
order of a Magistrate under s. SZ3 of. the Code of Criminal Proeedure, 
and that the sale proceeds had been paid to a creditor of the respondent 
under an attachment order. The respondent .thereupon filed a s.uit for 
the recovery of ti)e value of the vehicles. 
·: 
.. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
' 
;i.'' ........ ' ' 
. 
' 
. 
It appeareiilff~'. \he evidence that the vehicles were kept for :,ev~~\· I: 
yearn in ar. open. 'place outside the poliee station at Veraval so that most' 
of their parts were pilfered away and only the skeletons of the vehlclell : 
were left. 
Finally on the report of the officer incharae of the aforesaid 
police ~tation they were sold at an auction as unclaimed )1l'Operty after' 
obtaining the order of a Magistrate. 
The trial court on the above evi·' 
dence, decreed th» respondent's suit and the Hil!h Court upheld the 
decree though partly reducing the amount. 
The State appealed. to tbis 
Court. 
It was contended on bohalf of the appellant that the sale was 
under a judicial order and therefo~ there was no liability to pay; at tile 
most one or the other offi~ers of the Government could· be held guilty 
of negligence. It was further contended on behalf of the State that it 
could not be treated as a bailee because a bailment could arise only under 
a ccntract. 
HELD : (i) The State Government n9 doubt. seized the said vetiicles 
pursuant to the power under the Customs Act. ~ But· the power to seize 
and confiscate was dependant upon a customs. offence havtng been com-
mitteJ or a suspicion that such offence had been comniitted. The order 
of the Customs Officer was not final as it was subject to appeal aad if 
the oppollate authority found that there was no good ground for the 
excr: .. -i~·~ of that power the property could no longer be retained 
and 
h.:1d under the Act to be returned to the .owner. Thus there was a clear 
slatutC'r\ obligation to return th·~ vehicle to the owner if the appeal went 
in h's i;,vour. [944EJ 
There was also an implie,d leg-al. obligation to presetve the property 
intact and to take reasonable care of it so as to enable it to be returned 
·F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
0 
,. 
G 
H 
BOMBAY v. HAJI HASAM (She/at, /.) 
939 
in the same condition in which it was seized. The position of the State 
Government until the order became final was therefore that of a bailee. 
There can be bailment and the relationship of a bailor and bailee in 
respect of specific property without there being an enforceable contract. 
Nor is consent indispensable for such a relationship to arise. 
Even a 
finder of goods of anot~r becomes a bailee in certain 
circumstar.ces. 
[Y4°1A-D; F-Hl 
The High Court was right in confirmin~ the decree passed by the 
trial court on the basis that there was an obbgation on the State Goyern-
ment either to return the said vehicles or in the alternative to pay their 
value. f 945 EJ 
State of Rajasthan v. Mst. Vidhyawati, f1962l 
Supp. 2 S.C.R. 989' 
and Kasturilal lain v. State of U.P. [1965] I S.C.R. 375, held inapplic-
1ble. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 215 of 
1961. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated 
January 22, 1958 of the Bombay High Court at Rajkot in Civil 
First Appeal No. 93 of 1956. 
R. H. Dhebar, for the appellant. 
H. K. Puri and Bishamber Lal, for the respondents No5. 4-7. 
The Judgment of the

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