TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1967 (1) TMI 39
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rules, 1963 (Gold Control Rules), hereinafter called the Rules, for searching the premises of the appellant. Pursuant to that authorization, the appellant's premises were searched and as a result of the search gold and other articles, foreign currency and other documents were seized. The appellant filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) challenging the validity of the said search and the seizure of the articles and documents belonging to him. The petition was heard along with similar petitions filed by other persons whose premises were likewise searched and goods and documents seized therefrom. The High Court dismissed all the petitions. The several petitioners before the High Court, along with the appellant, preferred appeals to this Court and the appeals other than that filed by the appellant were heard by this Court; see Durga Prasad v. H.R. Gomes, Superintendent (Prevention), Central Excise, Nagpur, AIR 1966 SC 1209. Therein this Court considered the various contentions raised by them and dismissed the same. For one reason or other, this appeal was not heard along with them. 3. Obviously the points covered by that ju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay be advisable, and indeed proper, for him to give reasons, the non-mention of reasons in itself does not vitiate the order. Nor can we agree with the appellant that the particulars of the nature of the goods and of the documents should be given in the authorization. Obviously, no question of giving of particulars arises if he himself makes the search, but if he authorizes any officer to do so, he cannot give the particulars of the documents, for they will be known only after the search is made. Doubtless he has to indicate broadly the nature of the documents and the goods in regard to which the officer authorized by him should make a search, for without that his mandate cannot be obeyed. The authorization issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs in this case clearly mentioned that on information received it appeared that the appellant was in possession of contraband goods and documents relating thereto and also described the office and the residential premises wherein those goods and documents would be found. In the circumstances of the case we are satisfied that the specifications are sufficient to enable the officer authorized to make the search. 8. The next argument is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of which he is in charge, or to which he is attached, and that such thing cannot in his opinion be otherwise obtained without undue delay, such officer may, after recording in writing the grounds of his belief and specifying in such writing, so far as possible, the thing for which search is to be made, search, or cause search to be made, for such thing in any place within the limits of such station. (2) ***** (3) If he is unable to conduct the search in person, and there is no other person competent to make the search present at the time, he may after recording in writing his reasons for so doing require any officer subordinate to him to make the search, and he shall deliver to such subordinate officer an order in writing specifying the place to be searched and, so far as possible, the thing for which search is to be made; and such subordinate officer may thereupon search for such thing in such place. (4) The provisions of this Code as to search-warrants and the general provisions as to searches contained in Section 102 and Section 103 shall, so far as may be, apply to a search made under this section. (5) Copies of any record made under sub-section (1) or sub-section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to the two categories mentioned therein, namely, goods liable to be confiscated and documents relevant to a proceeding under the Act. No doubt the power can be abused. But that is controlled by other means. Though under the section the Assistant Collector of Customs need not give the reasons, if the existence of belief is questioned in any collateral proceedings, he has to produce relevant evidence to sustain his belief. That apart, under Section 165(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, read with Section 105(2) of the Act, he has to send forthwith to the Collector of Customs a copy of any record made by him. The Collector would certainly give necessary directions if the Assistant Collector went wrong, or if his act was guided by mala fides. But the more effective control on him is found in Section 136(2) of the Act. It reads : If any officer of customs, ............... (a) requires any person to be searched for goods liable to confiscation or any document relating thereto, without having reason to believe that he has such goods or documents secreted about his person; or (b) arrests any person without having reason to believe that he has been guilty of an offence punisha....