https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169470 Article 20(3) was held to protect a person formally accused of an offence from being compelled, even at a customs enquiry stage, to appear, give evidence, or produce incriminating documents. Section 171A of the Sea Customs Act was therefore invalid to the extent it authorised compulsory self-incriminatory notices. By contrast, a search warrant under Section 172 for prohibited goods and related documents was treated as carrying implied authority to seize articles found in execution of the search. The omission of an express seizure direction did not make the seizure unlawful, so the challenge to restoration of the goods and documents failed. en-us Tue, 09 Aug 1955 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Apr 2015 16:03:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169470 Article 20(3) was held to protect a person formally accused of an offence from being compelled, even at a customs enquiry stage, to appear, give evidence, or produce incriminating documents. Section 171A of the Sea Customs Act was therefore invalid to the extent it authorised compulsory self-incriminatory notices. By contrast, a search warrant under Section 172 for prohibited goods and related documents was treated as carrying implied authority to seize articles found in execution of the search. The omission of an express seizure direction did not make the seizure unlawful, so the challenge to restoration of the goods and documents failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 09 Aug 1955 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169470