SETH DURGAPRASAD ETC. versus H. R. GOMES

SETH DURGAPRASAD ETC. versus H. R. GOMES

The Superintendent of Central Excise was not empowered under Rule 126L(2) to seize documents; such power is not ancillary to gold seizure and is only given under Rule 126L(1) and (3). However, valid orders of seizure of documents were made by the Collector of Customs under section 110(3) of the Customs Act, as he is a 'proper officer' under section 2(34). The legal possession of documents by the Superintendent sufficed for the Collector’s seizure order, even though documents were physically in Delhi. The requirements for search under section 105 were met, as the term 'secreted' includes documents not kept in their normal place or likely to be hidden.

Parties
Appellant: Seth Durgaprasad; Respondent: H. R. Gomes
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
09 December 1965
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Search and Seizure, Gold Control Rules, Proper Officer Definition, Legal Possession Versus Physical Possession
Customs Law Administrative Law Defence Law Search and Seizure Gold Control Rules Proper Officer Definition Legal Possession Versus Physical Possession

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Seth Durgaprasad

Appellant

H. R. Gomes

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether officer authorised under Rule 126L(2) can seize documents under Defence of India Rules
  2. 2 Whether Collector of Customs is 'proper officer' under section 2(34) of Customs Act for ordering seizure under section 110(3)
  3. 3 Whether orders under section 110(3) valid when documents not in physical possession of the officer

Ratio Decidendi

The Superintendent of Central Excise was not empowered under Rule 126L(2) to seize documents; such power is not ancillary to gold seizure and is only given under Rule 126L(1) and (3). However, valid orders of seizure of documents were made by the Collector of Customs under section 110(3) of the Customs Act, as he is a 'proper officer' under section 2(34). The legal possession of documents by the Superintendent sufficed for the Collector’s seizure order, even though documents were physically in Delhi. The requirements for search under section 105 were met, as the term 'secreted' includes documents not kept in their normal place or likely to be hidden.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • No writ to be issued; High Court judgment affirmed
  • Appeals dismissed with costs