1967 (1) TMI 39 - SC - Customs

Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Customs Search & Seizure Decision

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court of Bombay's decision regarding the validity of a search and seizure conducted by the Assistant Collector of ... Validity of search and seizure under statutory search power - Requirement of 'reason to believe' as precondition for authorization to search - Particulars in search authorization and prevention of roving searches - Application of Code of Criminal Procedure search provisions to statutory searches - Meaning and scope of 'Proper Officer' and delegation of functions - Constitutional challenge under Article 14 to statutory search power - Mala fides and scope of collateral inquiry into executive belief - Statutory and disciplinary controls on exercise of search powersValidity of search and seizure under statutory search power - Mala fides and scope of collateral inquiry into executive belief - Search of appellant's premises and seizure of articles and documents were valid and not vitiated by mala fides. - HELD THAT: - The High Court's evaluation of the evidence satisfied the Supreme Court that the Assistant Collector and the officer authorized to search did not act with mala fides. The Court saw no reason to depart from the High Court's factual finding on the issue of mala fides. Consequently the search and seizure were held valid on the material placed before the courts. [Paras 4, 11, 12]Findings of no mala fides and validity of the search and seizure upheld; appeal dismissed.Requirement of 'reason to believe' as precondition for authorization to search - Particulars in search authorization and prevention of roving searches - Authorization need not reproduce the words 'reason to believe' nor set out detailed particulars of goods and documents; the authorization's phrasing may suffice if it conveys the substantive requirement and gives broad indication of the nature and place of suspected contraband. - HELD THAT: - Although Section 105 requires that the Assistant Collector have reason to believe that goods or documents are secreted, the statute does not mandate that the authorization contain those precise words or a detailed recital of reasons. While it is proper to indicate broadly the nature of the goods and documents and the places to be searched so that the authorized officer can obey the mandate, particulars of documents which can only be discovered by the search need not be specified in advance. The authorization in the present case described that information had been received that contraband goods and documents were present and identified the office and residential premises to be searched, which the Court held sufficient. [Paras 5, 6, 7]Form and content of authorization in this case were sufficient; absence of express words 'reason to believe' or detailed particulars did not vitiate the authorization.Application of Code of Criminal Procedure search provisions to statutory searches - Provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure apply 'so far as may be' to searches under Section 105 but the obligation to record reasons under Section 165(1) of the Code does not import into Section 105 where the statutory scheme contemplates a different situation. - HELD THAT: - Section 105(2) of the Act adopts CrPC search provisions 'so far as may be' with a specific modification. Section 165(1) of the CrPC governs urgent police searches where recording of grounds is essential to justify bypassing ordinary warrants. The Court held that Section 105 searches are of a different character and that the condition in Section 165(1) to record grounds cannot be mechanically read into every authorization under Section 105. Therefore the non-recording of reasons in the authorization did not render the search void under that principle. [Paras 9]CrPC Section 165(1) recording requirement does not automatically apply to Section 105 authorizations; contention rejected.Meaning and scope of 'Proper Officer' and delegation of functions - The Collector of Customs and the Board can assign functions to officers; a 'Proper Officer' may be an officer to whom functions are assigned by the Board or the Collector. - HELD THAT: - The definition of 'Proper Officer' in Section 2(34) contemplates assignment of functions either by the Board or by the Collector of Customs. A fair reading of the provision shows that the preposition 'by' qualifies both entities; accordingly the Collector is empowered to assign functions to other officers and need not carry out all acts personally. The contention that only the Board can assign or that the Collector must seize personally was rejected. [Paras 8]Searches and seizures by officers to whom functions were assigned were not invalid for want of personal action by the Collector.Constitutional challenge under Article 14 to statutory search power - Statutory and disciplinary controls on exercise of search powers - Section 105 does not offend Article 14; the statute contains policy and effective controls on exercise of search powers. - HELD THAT: - Though Section 105 confers discretionary power conditioned on the Assistant Collector having reason to believe specified facts, the Court found legislative policy in the statute limiting searches to goods liable to confiscation and documents relevant to proceedings. Controls include the need to justify belief in collateral proceedings, transmission of records under the CrPC provision read with Section 105(2), supervisory directions by the Collector, and penal sanction under Section 136(2) for exercising search powers without reason to believe. These checks render the power neither unguided nor arbitrary. [Paras 10]Article 14 challenge to Section 105 rejected; statutory scheme contains sufficient policy and safeguards.Final Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the search and seizure, rejected allegations of mala fides, held the form of the authorization and delegation of 'proper officer' functions sufficient, declined to import the CrPC recording requirement into every Section 105 authorization, and found Section 105 constitutionally valid; the appeal was dismissed and the Court directed authorities to conclude investigation and return documents not required. Issues:Validity of search and seizure of articles and documents.Analysis:The judgment pertains to an appeal challenging the validity of a search and seizure conducted by the Assistant Collector of Customs and Central Excise under Rule 126(L)(2) of the Defence of India (Amendment) Rules, 1963. The appellant, a mining proprietor and exporter of manganese ore, had his premises searched based on information about undeclared gold possession. The High Court of Bombay dismissed the petition challenging the search, leading to the appeal in the Supreme Court.The appellant raised several contentions, including allegations of mala fides against the Assistant Collector. The Court found no substance in these claims, upholding the High Court's decision. Additionally, a key contention was regarding the authorization for the search not explicitly stating the Assistant Collector's 'reason to believe' as required under the Customs Act.The Court analyzed the authorization's language, concluding that despite not using the exact phrase 'reason to believe,' the authorization effectively conveyed the same meaning. It was established that the Assistant Collector's authorization sufficiently described the nature of goods and documents to be searched for, enabling the officer to conduct a focused search.Another issue raised was the interpretation of Section 110 of the Customs Act concerning the seizure of goods by a 'Proper Officer.' The argument centered on whether the Collector of Customs could assign seizure functions to another officer. The Court clarified that both the Board and the Collector could assign functions to customs officers, dismissing the contention against the seizure's validity.Furthermore, the appellant contended that the search was void due to non-compliance with the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court rejected this argument, distinguishing the different requirements under Section 105 of the Act and Section 165 of the Code. It emphasized that the provisions catered to distinct scenarios and did not necessitate identical procedures.Lastly, the appellant challenged the Assistant Collector's reasonable belief in conducting the search. The Court upheld the High Court's finding that the Assistant Collector had acted with reasonable belief, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence to challenge such belief. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, with the Court urging the Customs Authorities to expedite their investigation and return unnecessary seized documents to the appellant.