TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (3) TMI 529
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mined these coins and prima facie opined that these were antiquities. He also suggested that these be got examined from the Director General of Archaeological Survey of India as required under Section 24 of the Antiquities Act for final decision. The defense of the petitioner before the Authority was that he had bought these rare coins from a shop located on the ground floor of Hotel Surya, Near Railway Station, Bangalore. He further states that he had been collecting the coins for over 50 years for his own delight and enjoyment. Some of these coins were of copper and sliver. He kept some coins in the house of accused No. 3 at B-9, Pamposh, New Delhi. On search being conducted at the house of accused No. 3, as many as 34149 old metallic coins were recovered. The petitioner admitted that all these coins belonged to him. It is in this background coupled with the fact that there was a prima facie view of the Superintendent, Archaeological Survey of India that coins were antiquity the export of which was banned under section 3 of the said Act, that the Collector of Customs accorded the sanction for prosecution of the petitioner vide his order dated 19th August, 1994. Pursuance to the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roduced as under :- 3. Regulation of export trade in antiquities and art treasures - (1) On and from the commencement of this Act, it shall not be lawful for any person, other than the Central Government or any authority or agency authorised by the Central Government in this behalf, to export any antiquity or art treasure. 5. The reading of this Section makes it clear that no antiquity as defined under section 2 can be exported without the authority of the Central Government. Admittedly, in this case, the Central Government had not authorised the petitioner to export the coins. The word "export" has been defined under section 2(c) of the Antiquities Act which means taking out of India to a place outside India. In the present case, it has been the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was taking the coins out of India. Therefore, apparently in view of Section 3 of the Antiquities Act there is a ban imposed for the export of such coins which fall under the definition of "antiquity". Section 4 of the Antiquities Act provides that the Customs Act of 1962 shall have effect in relation to all antiquities the export of which is prohibited under Section 3 of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itigation, above the scheme of this Act. Once the final decision under section 24 is given holding the article to be antiquity then the said Act provides for prosecution and penalty under section 25 and 26 of the Act. 8. Mr. Dinesh Mathur, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that if at any stage under this Act a question is raised about the article being antiquity the decision of the authority mentioned under section 24 before launching prosecution becomes mandatory. In the absence of final decision prosecution cannot be launched. Sections 25-26 of the Antiquities Act, which are reproduced as under, envisage the penalty to be imposed in case a person violates Section 3 of this Act and the Court will take cognizance under Section 26. 25. Penalty - (1) If any person, himself or by any other person on his behalf, exports or attempts to export any antiquity or art treasure in contravention of Section 3, he shall, without prejudice to any confiscation or penalty to which he may be liable under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 as applied by Section 4, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to thr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n, Additional Solicitor General pointed out that since the prohibition is contained under Section 3 of the Antiquities Act and as per Section 4 of the Antiquities Act, the confiscation can be done under the provisions of Section 113 of the Customs Act, therefore, the complaint had to be filed under the Customs Act. He then drew the attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 127 of the Customs Act, which is reproduced as under : 127. Award of confiscation or penalty by customs officers not to interfere with the other punishments - The award of any confiscation or penalty under this Act by an officer of Customs shall not prevent the infliction of any punishment to which the person affected thereby is liable under the provisions of Chapter XVI of this Act or under any other law. 11. Relying on Section 127 of the Customs Act he contended that these provisions envisage that once the goods are confiscated then the penalty has to be imposed under the Customs Act. Customs Authorities will inflict the punishment as provided under Chapter XVI of the Act or under any other law. Chapter XVI deals with the offences and prosecution. Section 135 falls under Chapter XVI of the Customs ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iquities Act are in addition to the Customs Act. Hence, the jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs is not barred, rather the reading of Section 30 of the Antiquities Act envisages that the Collectors of Customs would have the jurisdiction. It provides that the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to any other law. Any other law in this case would be the Customs Act. Relying on the observations of Supreme Court in the case of Rabindra Chamaria (supra) as well as in the case of Shri V. K. Aggarwal v. Vasantraj Bhagwanji Bhatia, AIR 1988 SC 1106, Mr. Chandrasekharan contended that since the offence under the Antiquities Act and Customs Act exist independently hence prosecutor could choose to prosecute the petitioner under one of the Act instead of both. In the case of V. K. Aggarwal (supra) the Court was concerned with the Customs Act as well as the Gold (Control) Act. In that case, the accused was acquitted under section 111 read with Section 135 of the Customs Act. He was, however, subsequently prosecuted under section 85 of the Gold (Control) Act. The High Court in that case held that the subsequent trial was barred by virtue of Section 403(1) of Cr.P.C., but the Supreme C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s specified in Section 8 thereof including currency notes as well. Even if the currency notes are not goods, the restrictions prescribed in Section 8 of the Foreign Exchange Act cannot be nullified by Section 23-A thereof which incorporates Section 19 of the Sea Customs Act. 13. Relying on these observations, the Additional Solicitor General contended that by virtue of Section 30 read with Section 4 of the Antiquities Act restrictions created under section 3 of the Antiquities Act would entitle the Collector of Customs to initiate the prosecution under Section 135 of the Customs Act. According to Mr. M. Chandrasekharan reading of the Customs Act clearly postulates that prosecution under the Antiquities Act is independent than under the Customs Act. It is only when a person has to be prosecuted under Section 26 of the Antiquities Act that the provisions of Section 24 would assume importance but not when the prosecution is under the Customs Act. The provisions of one Act in view of the above discussion does not exclude the provisions of the other Act. These run parallel. Harmonious reading of the scheme of Antiquities Act and of the Customs Act would lead to only one conclusion that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cability of all the provisions of the Customs Act. This shows the mind and the intention of the Legislature. Provisions of the Customs Act are now applicable only for confiscation and not for prosecution. To arrive at this conclusion reference can be made to the provision of Section 25 of the Antiquities Act which have been reproduced above. Section 25 of the Antiquities Act in no uncertain words stipulates that if any person contravenes the provisions of Section 3 he shall be liable for punishment without prejudice to the action of confiscation or penalty for which he has rendered himself liable under the Customs Act. Bare reading of Section 25 clearly shows that confiscation and penalty has to be under the Customs Act whereas for the breach of Section 3 of the Antiquities Act, the punishment and prosecution has to be under this Act i.e. Antiquities Act. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the arguments given by Mr. M. Chandrasekharan can be appreciated that once the confiscation is done under section 113 of the Customs Act read with Section 127, all the provisions of Customs Act would come into operation and the Collector of Customs would get power to prosecute. The proceedi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ogical Survey of India, New Delhi was requested to depute an expert for evaluation of coins and Art Treasures. Shri Dharam Veer Sharam, Superintendent Archaeological (Antiquities) examined the recovered goods and vide his report dated 21-6-1994 confirmed them to be antiquities, covered under the provisions of Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 could not produce any evidence for lawful possession and export of the recovered coins of gold, silver and copper and the silver ornaments belt (Kamar Band) Indian currency and as such the same were seized. A panchnama dated 22-6-1994 was drawn." 17. Reading of this para indicates that prosecution wrongly read the report of 21st and 22nd June, 1994 as confirmation of coins being antiquity. Even otherwise Mr. D. V. Sharma being mere Superintendent could not give his final decision because he lacked authority to do so. He was not the authority envisaged under section 24 of the Antiquities Act. In fact from the reading of para 3 of the complaint and the alleged sanction accorded it was clear that the prosecution was sure that they were prosecuting the petitioner under the Antiquities Act. That is why they invoked....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Section 127 or for that matter Chapter-XVI of the Customs Act can be taken help of. Section 127 of the Customs Act seemingly stipulates adjudication before confiscation and thereafter prosecution under Chapter XVI but not before that. Hence, reading of Section 127 of the Customs Act and Section 4 of the Antiquities Act nullifies the arguments Mr. M. Chandrasekharan that these are parellel proceedings. 20. Reliance by Mr. M. Chandrasekharan, Additional Solicitor General on the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 rather supports the case of the petitioner. Under Section 3 sub-section 2 of the Imports & Exports (Control) Act, 1947 all the provisions of the Customs Act have been made applicable but that provisions are seemingly absent under Section 4 of the Antiquities Act, 1972. Moreover, under section 5 of the Imports & Exports (Control) Act, 1947, no procedure has been prescribed for filing the complaint hence the complaint could be filed under Section 135 of the Customs Act. But under the Antiquities Act, the provisions for prosecution and penalty have been specifically provided under the Antiquities Act. The prosecution has to be under the Antiquities Act on account of the ....