COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS MADRAS NATHELLA SAMPATHU CHETTY PURAN SINGH KEWAL KRISHAN KRISHAN LAL ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR INDIA SONI NARANDAS NAGJIBHAI PUKHRAJ M S VENKITANARAYANA IYER Vs. NATHELLA SAMPATHU CHETTY:THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS MADRAS:THE STATE OF PUNJAB:THE STATE OF PUNJAB:THE STATE OF PUNJAB:THE STATE OF PUNJAB:THE STATE OF PUNJAB:D R KOHLI:THE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Judgment of the court was delivered by

(2.) THE Sea Customs Act, 1878 (Act 8 of 1378) (referred to hereinafter as the 'Act), was amended by s. 14 of Act 21 of 1955 by the introduction of s. 178A reading: '178A. (1) Where any goods to which this section applies are seized under this Act in the reasonable belief that they are smuggled goods, the burden of proving that they are not smuggled goods shall be on the person from whose possession the goods were seized. (2) This section shall apply to gold, gold manufactures, diamonds and other precious stones, cigarettes and cosmetics and any other goods which the central government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf. (3) Every notification issued under Sub- section (2) shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is issued.'

(3.) THE two writ petitions were heard together and by an order dated 11/09/1958, the learned Judges of the High court held, allowing Writ Petition 384 of 1957, that s. 178A of the Sea Customs Act was void under Art. 13 of the Constitution. THEy further held that even if s. 178A were valid, the condition precedent for invoking the rule as to the burden of proof prescribed by the section had not been complied with, in that the customs officer who effected the seizure which preceded the adjudication did not entertain 'a reasonable belief that the gold was smuggled', with the result that the order of confiscation was invalid. Besides, the learned Judges were also of the view that s. 178A of the Sea Customs Act could not be invoked in adjudicating a contravention of a notification under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act which imposed restrictions on the import of gold. Though on these conclusions the order of the Collector confiscating the gold was set aside, the learned Judges held that the respondent was not entitled to an order for the return of the gold, but only to a direction to the Collector to hear and determine the question about the gold seized being smuggled gold without reference to the rule as to onus of proof enacted by s. 178A. THE appellant, the Collector of Customs, Madras, obtained leave from the High court under Arts. 132 and 133 of the Constitution, to appeal to this court against the orders in writ petition No. 384 of 1957 and No. 660 of 1958 (Civil Appeals 408 and 409) and a similar order was passed in an application for a certificate by the respondent who felt aggrieved by the refusal of the court in Writ petition No. 660 of 1958 to direct an immediate return of the gold seized (Civil Appeal 410). THE three appeals have been consolidated as they arise out of the same transaction.