Independent seizure of relevant documents upheld, while challenge to goods seizure failed for lack of specific factual basis

The power to seize account books or other documents was treated as independent from the seizure of goods: where the statute authorises seizure of documents or things relevant to proceedings, that power does not depend on any prior seizure of goods or on a belief that goods are liable to confiscation. The seizure of documents was therefore upheld. A challenge to seizure of goods on the ground that the officer lacked reason to believe confiscation was also rejected because no specific factual plea or material was shown to support that claim. The writ petitions failed and the seizures were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether account books or other documents could be seized independently under the seizure provision made applicable to excise matters, without any prior seizure of goods on the ground of liability to confiscation; (ii) whether the seizure of goods could be invalidated in the absence of any specific plea or material showing that the proper officer had no reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation.

Issue (i): whether account books or other documents could be seized independently under the seizure provision made applicable to excise matters, without any prior seizure of goods on the ground of liability to confiscation.

Analysis: The provision dealing with seizure of documents and things was treated as distinct from the provision dealing with seizure of goods. The former empowered the proper officer to seize documents or things that, in his opinion, would be useful for or relevant to proceedings, and that power was held not to depend upon a prior seizure of goods or upon the existence of a belief that goods were liable to confiscation. By reason of the statutory incorporation into excise matters, the same power applied to proceedings under the excise law.

Conclusion: The seizure of account books and similar documents was held to be valid and not dependent on seizure of goods.

Issue (ii): whether the seizure of goods could be invalidated in the absence of any specific plea or material showing that the proper officer had no reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation.

Analysis: The challenge to seizure of goods failed because no specific factual foundation was laid to show absence of material or absence of belief on the part of the proper officer. The requirement was treated as a factual matter, and in the absence of a concrete plea or record-based challenge, the seizure could not be struck down. The Court also declined to interfere in writ jurisdiction where the petitioners had been called upon to show cause and could obtain release if they succeeded before the authorities.

Conclusion: The seizure of goods was upheld and the challenge was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions failed, the seizures were sustained, and the Court declined to grant the requested certificate for further appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: The power to seize documents or things as relevant evidence is an independent statutory power and does not depend on prior seizure of goods, while a challenge to seizure of goods on the ground of absence of belief must be supported by a specific factual plea.

---