Judicial notice of Customs notifications, irregular search, and burden on accused to disprove smuggled goods upheld.

Notifications issued under the Customs Act were treated as delegated legislation with the force of law, so the court was bound to take judicial notice of them without formal proof. An irregular or unauthorised search did not, by itself, vitiate the seizure, investigation, or prosecution; the seizure still had to be assessed on its merits. Goods proved to be of foreign origin, unsupported by lawful import or duty-paid documents, were treated as notified smuggled goods because the statutory burden to disprove smuggling was not discharged. The acquittal was set aside, and conviction under the Customs Act followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether notifications issued under the Customs Act could be taken judicial notice of without formal proof; (ii) whether want of written authorisation for the search vitiated the seizure and trial; (iii) whether the seized goods were liable to be treated as notified smuggled goods and whether the accused discharged the burden of proof.

Issue (i): whether notifications issued under the Customs Act could be taken judicial notice of without formal proof.

Analysis: Notifications issued by the Central Government under the statutory power to notify goods under the Customs Act were treated as delegated legislation having the force of law. Such notifications were therefore within the category of law of which the Court was bound to take judicial notice under the Evidence Act, and the prosecution was not required to formally prove them by production of the Gazette notification in evidence.

Conclusion: The notifications were judicially noticeable, and the acquittal could not be sustained on the ground of non-production of the notifications.

Issue (ii): whether want of written authorisation for the search vitiated the seizure and trial.

Analysis: The search provisions under the Customs Act required satisfaction and authorisation for search, but the Court held that even if the search was irregular or illegal for want of proper authorisation, that circumstance did not by itself invalidate the seizure of the goods or the subsequent prosecution. The evidence of seizure and recovery still had to be examined on its merits.

Conclusion: The alleged illegality in the search did not vitiate the seizure, the investigation, or the trial.

Issue (iii): whether the seized goods were liable to be treated as notified smuggled goods and whether the accused discharged the burden of proof.

Analysis: The seized articles were shown to be goods of foreign origin and were covered by the relevant notifications. The accused did not produce lawful import or duty-paid documents, and the burden under the Customs Act to prove that the goods were not smuggled goods was not discharged. The statements recorded under the Customs Act and the surrounding circumstances supported the inference that the goods were kept for sale and were of foreign origin.

Conclusion: The goods were treated as notified smuggled goods, and the accused were liable for the offence under the Customs Act.

Final Conclusion: The order of acquittal was set aside, the respondents were convicted under the Customs Act, and each was sentenced to fine with default imprisonment.

Ratio Decidendi: Notifications issued in exercise of delegated statutory power, when legislative in character and having force of law, are subject to judicial notice; and an irregular or illegal search does not by itself invalidate the seizure or subsequent criminal proceedings if the seizure is otherwise proved and the statutory burden regarding smuggled goods remains undischarged.

---