1971 (3) TMI 121 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court overturns conviction under Prevention of Corruption Act due to lack of customs duty liability

Harivansh Lal Mehra Versus State Of Maharashtra

The appellant was acquitted of most charges but convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act for sending articles from Goa to Bombay without paying ... - Issues:- Conviction under Prevention of Corruption Act- Allegation of evading customs duty- Legality of investigation and required sanction- Liability to pay customs duty on goods sent from Goa to Bombay in 1962Conviction under Prevention of Corruption Act:The appellant was acquitted of most charges but convicted under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for sending articles from Goa to Bombay without paying customs duty. The trial court found his assets exceeded his known sources of income, but the High Court did not delve into this aspect. The Supreme Court noted that the accusation lacked a solid basis and was not pressed during the hearing. The High Court considered the offense of sending personal goods in postal vehicles as technical and trifling, focusing on the evasion of customs duty instead.Allegation of evading customs duty:The appellant, a Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, was accused of utilizing his official position to evade customs duty by sending luxury articles from Goa to Bombay in 1962. The prosecution relied on evidence of multiple instances to support this charge. However, the Supreme Court found the charge lacked a legal basis. The appellant's counsel argued that no customs duty was leviable on goods sent from Goa to Bombay at that time, as Goa had become a part of India post-liberation.Legality of investigation and required sanction:The appellant's counsel raised various legal pleas, including the illegality of the investigation due to lack of required sanction. However, the Supreme Court primarily focused on the absence of customs duty liability on goods sent from Goa to Bombay in 1962. The counsel contended that the entire prosecution case should collapse due to the non-leviability of customs duty on the articles in question.Liability to pay customs duty on goods sent from Goa to Bombay in 1962:The Supreme Court analyzed the legal framework post-Goa's integration into India in 1961. It highlighted that no statute or rule imposed customs duty on goods transmitted from Goa to other parts of India after December 20, 1961. The court criticized the reliance on administrative instructions for levying customs duty, emphasizing that any tax or duty must have legal authorization. The court clarified that Goa ceased to be a foreign territory upon integration, rendering any previous notifications irrelevant. The High Court's consideration of practical aspects was deemed insufficient to establish the appellant's guilt.In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant. The court emphasized the absence of any legal basis for the charge of evading customs duty on goods sent from Goa to Bombay in 1962. The appellant's bail bond was canceled, and any paid fine was to be refunded.