1965 (10) TMI 85 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court restores Presidency Magistrate's orders on smuggling, clarifies Section 167(81) of Sea Customs Act.

Sachidananda Benerji, Assistant Collector of Customs Versus Sitaram Agarwala and Ors.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's orders, restoring the Presidency Magistrate's orders, and confirming the sentences ... - Issues Involved:1. Interpretation of Section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878.2. Determination of 'knowledge' and 'intention' under Section 167(81).3. Applicability of penal provisions to third parties dealing with smuggled goods.4. Evaluation of the evidence and facts related to the accused's actions.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Interpretation of Section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878:The main issue revolves around the interpretation of Section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878. The clause reads: 'If any person knowingly, and with intent to defraud the Government of any duty payable thereon, or to evade any prohibition or restriction for the time being in force under or by virtue of this Act with respect thereto acquires possession of, or is in any way concerned in carrying, removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping or concealing or in any manner dealing with any goods which have been unlawfully removed from a warehouse or which are chargeable with a duty which has not been paid or with respect to the importation or exportation of which any prohibition or restriction is for the time being in force as aforesaid.'The court emphasized that the clause must be construed strictly, and it is not open to the court to strain the language to read a casus omissus. The clause introduces a criminal offense triable by a Magistrate, with the convicted person liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine, or both.2. Determination of 'knowledge' and 'intention' under Section 167(81):The court identified two material ingredients constituting an offense under the clause: (1) knowledge of the prohibition or restriction against doing any of the enumerated acts with respect to goods imported or exported contrary to the restriction or prohibition, and (2) intention to evade such a restriction or prohibition. Both elements of mens rea, namely, knowledge and intention, must be established. The court clarified that knowledge of an offense cannot be equated with an intention to commit the offense, emphasizing the distinction between these two elements.3. Applicability of Penal Provisions to Third Parties Dealing with Smuggled Goods:The court addressed whether the penal provisions apply to third parties dealing with smuggled goods after the importation process is complete. The court held that the process of import does not end immediately when the prohibited goods are brought into India but continues until the goods are delivered to the importer, physically or constructively. The court concluded that subsequent transactions involving the goods after the importer parts with them are outside the scope of the clause's definition of 'import.'The court further noted that the Act distinguishes between a customs offense and a criminal offense. While smuggled goods can be confiscated regardless of whose possession they are found in, the Legislature has not made dealings in such goods by persons other than those mentioned in Clause 81 a criminal offense. The court emphasized that it is the Legislature's role to amend the section if necessary.4. Evaluation of Evidence and Facts Related to the Accused's Actions:The court examined the facts of the case, including the actions of the accused, Sitaram Agarwala and the Chinese accused. The High Court had found that Sitaram Agarwala had gone to purchase smuggled gold bars from the Chinese accused by previous arrangement. The court held that even though the purchase was not completed due to police intervention, Sitaram Agarwala was still 'concerned in dealing with prohibited goods' as he had taken overt actions based on a prior arrangement.Regarding the Chinese accused, the court held that he was found in possession of smuggled gold, which he knew to be such, and had attempted to sell it surreptitiously. The court concluded that the intent to defraud the Government of duty or to evade prohibition or restriction could be inferred from the possession and attempted sale of the smuggled goods.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the orders of the High Court, restored the orders of the Presidency Magistrate, and confirmed the sentences passed on the respondents. The court held that Section 167(81) applies not only to persons involved in the actual smuggling but also to those who deal with smuggled goods after the smuggling is over, provided they have the requisite knowledge and intent.