{"id":146894,"date":"1967-01-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1967-01-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-seth-gopikrishan-agarwal-vs-r-n-sen-assistant-collector-on-5-january-1967"},"modified":"2018-12-21T15:17:11","modified_gmt":"2018-12-21T09:47:11","slug":"r-s-seth-gopikrishan-agarwal-vs-r-n-sen-assistant-collector-on-5-january-1967","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-seth-gopikrishan-agarwal-vs-r-n-sen-assistant-collector-on-5-january-1967","title":{"rendered":"R. S. Seth Gopikrishan Agarwal vs R. N. Sen, Assistant Collector on 5 January, 1967"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
R. S. Seth Gopikrishan Agarwal vs R. N. Sen, Assistant Collector on 5 January, 1967<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 1298, \t\t 1967 SCR (2) 340<\/div>\n
Author: K S Rao<\/div>\n
Bench: Rao, K. Subba (Cj), Shah, J.C., Sikri, S.M., Ramaswami, V., Vaidyialingam, C.A.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nR. S. SETH GOPIKRISHAN AGARWAL\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nR. N. SEN, ASSISTANT COLLECTOR\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n05\/01\/1967\n\nBENCH:\nRAO, K. SUBBA (CJ)\nBENCH:\nRAO, K. SUBBA (CJ)\nSHAH, J.C.\nSIKRI, S.M.\nRAMASWAMI, V.\nVAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.\n\nCITATION:\n 1967 AIR 1298\t\t  1967 SCR  (2) 340\n CITATOR INFO :\n F\t    1985 SC 989\t (10,13)\n\n\nACT:\n     Defence  of India (Amendment) Rules 1963 (Gold  Control\nRules) r. 126(L) (2) and the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962),\nss.  2(34),  105  and  110--Order  of  Assistant   Collector\nauthorising  search of premises, requirements  of--procedure\nof  search, s. 165(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure\t how\nfar  applicable--Officer  authorised  by  Collector  whether\n'proper officer'--Validity of s. 105.\n     Constitution  of  India, Art. 14--Section\t105  of\t Sea\nCustoms\t Act,  1962  whether gives  unguided  and  arbitrary\npower--Whether ultra vires.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe   Assistant\t Collector  of\tCentral\t Excise\t issued\t  an\nauthorization  'under s. 126(L)(2) of the Defence  of  India\n(Amendment)  Rules, 1963 (Gold Control Rules) for  searching\nthe  premises of the appellant.\t As a result of\t the  search\nundeclared  gold  and  certain other  articles\tas  well  as\ndocuments were seized.\tThe appellant's writ petition  under\nArt.  226  challenging\tthe search on  various\tgrounds\t was\ndismissed.  In appeal by certificate,\nHELD  :\t (i)  Mala fides had not  been\tproved\tagainst\t the\nofficer authorized to make the search [342 C]\n(ii) The  authorization\t order\tcould. not  be\tsaid  to  be\ndefective  merely  because it did not expressly\t employ\t the\nphrase\t'reason\t to  believe' occurring in s.  105  of\tthe-\nCustoms\t Act.  The phraseology used in the order  meant,  in\neffect and substance, the same thing. [342 E-F]\n(iii)\t  While\t it may be advisable and indeed\t proper\t for\nthe  Assistant Collector to give in the authorization  order\nthe  reasons for his belief that a search is necessary,\t the\nnon-mention  of\t reasons  would not by\titself\tvitiate\t the\norder.\t Nor  can all the particulars of the nature  of\t the\ngoods and of the documents be mentioned in the order as they\nwill   be   known  only\t after\tthe  search  is\t  made\t The\nspecifications given in the present case,were sufficient  to\nenable the officer authorized to make the search\n[343 C-D]\n(iv) The word by in s.2(34) refers both to the Board and the\nCollecter and therefore both the Board- and the Collector of\nCustoms can assign functions to an officer of Customs.\t[343\nH]\n(v)  It\t cannot\t be  said that the  Assistant  Collector  of\nCustoms\t must in authorizing search also record his  reasons\nfor  doing  so on the ground that s. 165(1) of the  Code  of\nCriminal  Procedure  which makes such a\t provision  is\tmade\napplicable  to\tsearches under s. 105 of  the  Customs\tAct.\nWhile  under S.--105 of the Act the Assistant  Collector  of\nCustoms either makes the search personally or authorizes any\nofficer\t of Customs to do so, if he has reasons\t to  believe\nthe facts mentioned therein, under s. 165(1) of the Code  of\nCriminal   Procedure  the  recording  of  the  reasons\t for\nbelieving  the facts is only to enable him to make a  search\nurgently  in a case where search warrants in  the  ordinary\ncourse cannot be obtained. It is, therefore, not possible to\ninvoke\tthe condition and apply it to a\t situation arising\nunder s. 105 of the Act [345 B-D]\n\t\t\t    341\n(VI) Section  105  of  the Customs Act does  not  confer  an\nunguided  and arbitrary power on the Assistant Collector  of\nCustoms\t to  make  a  search.  A  deeper  scrutiny   of\t the\nprovisions  indicates not only a policy but  also  effective\nchecks\ton  the\t exercise  of the power\t of  search  by\t the\nAssistant Collector.  The section does not therefore  offend\nArt. 14 of the Constitution. [346 D]\n(vii)\t  The High Court on the materials placed before\t it,\nheld that the Assistant Collector had acted with  reasonable\nbelief\tin  the facts mentioned in s. 105.   There,  was  no\njustification for interfering with the findings of the\tHigh\nCourt. [346 E-F]\n'Durga\tPrasad v. H. R. Gomes,\tSuperintendent\t(Prevention)\nCentral Excise, Nagpur, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1209, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 998 of 1965.
\nAppeal\tfrom the judgment and order dated February  24,\t 25,
\n1964 of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in Special Civil
\nApplication 459 of 1963.\n<\/p>\n
B.   K.\t Sanghi,  G.  L. Sanghi and 0. C.  Mathur,  for\t the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
Niren  De, Addl, Solicitor-General, N. S. Bindra and  R.  H.
\nDhebar, for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nSubba Rao, C. J. This appeal by certificate raises the quest
\non  whether the search of the premises of the appellant\t and
\nthe seizure of the articles and the documents found  therein
\nwere valid.\n<\/p>\n
The relevant facts are as follows: The appellant is a mining
\nproprietor  and holds several manganese\t mines in  different
\nStates.\t  He has also been doing business in  many  articles
\napart\tfrom  being  an\t exporter  of  manganese  ore.\t  On
\ninformation  alleged to have been received to the effect  of
\nthat the appellant was in possession of a large quantity  of
\nundeclared  gold  the  Assistant Collector  of\tCustoms\t and
\nCentral Exercise Raipur issued an authorization under r. 126
\n(L)4(2)\t of  the Defence of India  (Amendment)\tRules,\t1963
\n(Gold  Control\tRules)\thereinafter called  the\t Rules,\t for
\nsearching  the premises of the appellant.  Pursuant to\tthat
\nauthorization, the appellants premises were searched and  as
\na  result  of the search gold and  other  articles,  foreign
\ncurrency  and other documents. were seized.   The  appellant
\nfiled  a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in\t the
\nHigh Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) challenging the validity
\nof  the\t said  search and the seizure of  the  articles\t and
\ndocuments  belonging to him.  The petition was\theard  along
\nwith similar petitions filed by other persons whose premises
\nwere  likewise\tsearched  and  goods  and  documents  seized
\ntherefrom.  The High Court dismissed all the petitions.\t The
\nseveral\t petitioners before the High Court, along  with\t the
\nappellant,  preferred  appeals\tto this\t Court\tand  the  an
\nappeal’s  other than that filed by the appellant were  heard
\nby this Court : See Durg
\n342<\/span>
\nPrasad\tv. H.R. Gomes, Superintendent (Prevention),  Central
\nExercise  Nagpur(1).   Therein\tthis  Court  considered\t the
\nvarious\t contentions raised by them and dismissed the  same.
\nFor  one  reason or other, this appeal was not\theard  along
\nwith them.\n<\/p>\n
Obviously  the\tpoints covered by that\tjudgment  cannot  be
\npermitted  to be reagitated in this appeal.  Accepting\tthat
\nposition, learned counsel for the appellant raised before us
\nonly  the  questions  that  were not  decided  by  the\tsaid
\njudgment.   We shall now proceed to consider  the  questions
\nthat are peculiar to this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
The contention that the Assistant Collector and the  officer
\nauthorized  by him to make the search acted with mala  fides
\nhas  no substance.  The High Court considered  the  evidence
\nand  rejected it. We do not see any justification to take  a
\ndifferent view on the material placed before us.
\nThe  second contention is that under s. 105 of\tthe  Customs
\nAct,  hereinafter  called the Act, the\tAssistant  Collector
\nshall  have reason to believe that some goods  are  secreted
\nbefore he can authorize any officer of Customs to search for
\nthem or the relevant documents, but the authorization  given
\nby  the Assistant Collector to the Customs Officer  did\t not
\nsay that he had reason to believe so.\n<\/p>\n
The relevant part of the authorization reads thus
\n\t       “Whereas information has been laid before  me
\n\t      of  the suspected commission of offence  under
\n\t      section  11  read\t with  section\t111  of\t the
\n\t      Customs Act 1962 (52 of 1962) and it has\tbeen
\n\t      made   to\t appear\t that  the   production\t  of
\n\t      contraband   goods  and\tdocuments   relating
\n\t      thereto are essential to the enquiry about  to
\n\t      be made in the suspected offence……..
\nThough\tthe  words  “reason to believe”\t are  not  in  terms
\nembodied  in  the  authorisation, the  phraseology  used  in
\neffect and substance meant the same thing.
\n,  The next contention is that on a reasonable\tconstruction
\nof  the said provision it should be held that the  Assistant
\nCollector  of Customs should not only give reasons  for\t his
\nbelief\tbut also the particulars of the nature of the  goods
\nand   of  the  documents,  for,\t if  the  reasons  and\t the
\nparticulars are not given the officer authorized may make  a
\nroving search of the house which is not in the contemplation
\nof the said section.  This argument may be dealt with in two
\nparts.\t In  terms S. 105 of the Act does not say  that\t the
\nAssistant Collector shall give reasons.\t The power conferred
\non  him under S. 105 is not subject to any  such  condition.
\nThough\the cannot make a search or authorize any officer  to
\nmake a search
\n(1) A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1209.\n<\/p>\n
343<\/span><\/p>\n
unless\the has reason to believe the existence of the  facts
\nmentioned in the section, the section does not compel him to
\ngive reasons.  While it may be advisable, and indeed proper,
\nfor  him  to  give reasons, the non-mention  of\t reasons  in
\nitself\tdoes not vitiate the order.  Nor can we\t agree\twith
\nthe  appellant\tthat the particulars of the  nature  of\t the
\ngoods\tand  of\t the  documents\t should\t be  given  in\t the
\nauthorization.\t Obviously, no question of giving of  parti-
\nculars\tarises\tif he himself makes the search,\t but  if  he
\nauthorizes  any\t officer  to  do  so,  he  cannot  give\t the
\nparticulars  of the documents, for they will be\t known\tonly
\nafter  the  search is made.  Doubtless he  has\tto  indicate
\nbroadly the nature of the documents and the goods in  regard
\nto which the officer authorized by him should make a search,
\nfor  without that his mandate cannot be obeyed.\t The  autho-
\nrization  issued  by the Assistant Collector of\t Customs  in
\nthis case clearly mentioned that on information received  it
\nappeared that the appellant was in possession of  contraband
\ngoods and documents relating thereto and also described\t the
\noffice and the residential premises wherein those goods\t and
\ndocuments would be found.  In the circumstances of the\tcase
\nwe  are satisfied that the specifications are sufficient  to
\nenable the officer authorized to make the search.
\nThe next argument is based upon the provisions of s. 110  of
\nthe  Act.  Under s. 110(3) of the Act only a proper  officer
\ncan  seize any documents or goods which in his opinion\twill
\nbe useful for or relevant to any proceedings under the\tAct.
\n“Proper\t officer”  has been defined by s. 2(34) of  the\t Act
\nthus :\n<\/p>\n
\t       “Proper\t Officer,”   in\t relation   to\t any
\n\t      functions\t to  be performed  under  this\tAct,
\n\t      means  the officer of customs who is  assigned
\n\t      those functions by the Board or the  Collector
\n\t      of Customs.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
it is contended that, on a true construction of s. 2(34)  of
\nthe  Act the Collector of Customs should himself  seize\t the
\ngoods,\tthat he has no power to authorize another to  do  so
\nand that in this case the Collector of Customs did not\tmake
\nthe seizure.  This argument turns upon the terms of the said
\nprovision.   It\t is  said that the  Board  only\t can  assign
\nfunctions  to  another\tofficer and that  the  Collector  of
\nCustoms\t cannot\t assign but can\t function  personally.\t The
\ncontroversial expression in s. 2(34) is “by the Board or the
\nCollector  of Customs”.\t The clause “who is  assigned  those
\nfunctions”, the argument proceeds, refers only to the  Board
\nand not to the Collector.  A fair reading of the  provision,
\nin our view, is that the preposition “by” refers both to the
\nBoard  and the Collector.  Both the Board and the  Collector
\nof Customs can assign functions to an officer of Customs.
\nIt is then contended that the search made was void  inasmuch
\nas  in making the search the relevant provisions of Code  of
\nCriminal
\n344<\/span>
\nProcedure  had\tnot been complied with.\t  This\targument  is
\nbased upon S. 105(2) of the Act.  It reads
\n\t       “The  provisions\t of  the  Code\tof  Criminal
\n\t      Procedure,  1898, relating to searches  shall,
\n\t      so far as may be, apply to searches under this
\n\t      section subject to the modification that\tsub-
\n\t      section  (5) of section 165 of the  said\tCode
\n\t      shall   have  effect  as\tif  for\t  the\tword
\n\t      “Magistrate”,  wherever it occurs,  the  words
\n\t      “Collector of Customs” were substituted.”
\nNow,  if we look at the Code of Criminal Procedure,  s.\t 165
\ndeals  with  searches.\tThe relevant part  of  that  section
\nreads
\n\t       (1)  Whenever  an  officer  in  charge  of  a
\n\t      police  station or a police-officer making  an
\n\t      investigation   has  reasonable  grounds\t for
\n\t      believing\t that  anything\t necessary  for\t the
\n\t      purposes of an investigation into any  offence
\n\t      which  he is authorised to investigate may  be
\n\t      found  in any place within the limits  of\t the
\n\t      police-station of which he is in charge, or to
\n\t      which  he\t is attached, and  that\t such  thing
\n\t      cannot  in his opinion be\t otherwise  obtained
\n\t      without  undue delay, such officer may,  after
\n\t      recording in writing the grounds of his belief
\n\t      and  specifying  in such writing,\t so  far  as
\n\t      possible, the thing for which search is to  be
\n\t      made, search, or cause search to be made,\t for
\n\t      such  thing in any place within the limits  of
\n\t      such station.\n<\/p>\n
\t       (2)<\/span><\/p>\n
\t       (3)  If he is unable to conduct the search in
\n\t      person, and there is no other person competent
\n\t      to make the search present at the time, he may
\n\t      after recording in writing his reasons for  so
\n\t      doing  require any officer subordinate to\t him
\n\t      to  make the search, and he shall\t deliver  to
\n\t      such  subordinate officer an order in  writing
\n\t      specifying  the place to be searched  and;  so
\n\t      far as possible, the thing for which search is
\n\t      to  be made and such subordinate\tofficer\t may
\n\t      thereupon search for such thing in such place.
\n\t       (4)  The\t provisions  of\t this  Code  as\t  to
\n\t      search-warrants and the\tgeneral\t  provisions
\n\t      as  to searches contained in section  102\t and
\n\t      section 103 shall, so far as maybe, apply to a
\n\t      search made under this section.\n<\/p>\n
\t       (5)  Copies   of\t  any  record\tmade   under
\n\t      subsection   (1)\tor  sub-section\t (3)   shall
\n\t      forthwith\t be sent to the\t nearest  Magistrate
\n\t      empowered\t to take cognizance of\tthe  offence
\n\t      and  the\towner  or  occupier  of\t the   place
\n\t      searched\tshall  on application  be  furnished
\n\t      with a copy of the same by the .Magistrate.\n<\/p>\n
\t      345<\/span><\/p>\n
The argument is that the expression “so far as may be” in s.
\n105(2) of the Act attracts s. 165(1) of the Code of Criminal
\nProcedure and under that section, as the police-officer\t has
\nto record in writing the grounds of his belief the Assistant
\nCollector  of Customs shall also in authorizing\t the  search
\nrecord\this reasons for doing so.  But, in our view, s.\t 105
\nof  the Act and s. 165(1) of the Code of Criminal  Procedure
\nare  intended to meet totally different\t situations.   While
\nunder  s. 105 of the Act the Assistant Collector of  Customs
\neither makes the search personally or authorizes any officer
\nof  Customs to do so, if he has reason to believe the  facts
\nmentioned  therein, under s. 165(1) of the Code of  Criminal
\nProcedure  the\trecording of the reasons for  believing\t the
\nfacts  is only to enable him to make a search urgently in  a
\ncase where search warrants in the ordinary course cannot  be
\nobtained.   It\tis, therefore, not possible to\tinvoke\tthat
\ncondition  and apply it to a situation arising under s.\t 105
\nof   the  Act.\t It  is\t not  necessary\t in  this  case\t  to
\nparticularize  which  of the other clauses or  part  of\t the
\nclauses of that section can be applied to a search under  s.
\n105 of the Act.\t We, therefore, reject this contention also.
\nThen  it  is  contended that s. 105 of the  Act\t confers  an
\nunguided) and arbitrary power on the Assistant Collector  of
\nCustoms to make a search,. the only condition being that  he
\nhas  reason  to\t believe  in  the  existence  of  the  facts
\nmentioned  therein.   It  is said that the  said  belief  is
\npractically  a\tsubjective  satisfaction  and  the   section
\nneither\t lays  down  any policy nor  imposes  any  effective
\ncontrol\t on his absolute discretion. So stated the  argument
\nis  attractive,\t but  a deeper scrutiny\t of  the  provisions
\nindicates  not only a policy but also effective\t checks\t Oil
\nthe  exercise  of  the\tpower to  search  by  the  Assistant
\nCollector of Customs.  The object of the section is to\tmake
\na  search  for\tthe goods liable to be\tconfiscated  or\t the
\ndocuments  secreted in any place. which are relevant to\t any
\nproceeding under the Act.  The legislative policy  reflected
\nin  the section is that the search must be in regard to\t the
\ntwo categories mentioned therein, namely, goods liable to be
\nconfiscated and documents relevant to a ding under the\tAct.
\nNo doubt the power can be abused. at is controlled by  other
\nmeans.\tThough under the section the Assistant Collector  of
\nCustoms\t need  not  give the reasons, if  the  existence  of
\nbelief\tis questioned in any collateral proceedings, he\t has
\nto  produce relevant evidence to sustain his  belief.\tThat
\napart,\tunder s. 165(5) of the Code of\tCriminal  Procedure,
\nread with s. 105(2) of the Act, he has to send forthwith  to
\nthe  Collector of Customs a copy of any record made by\thim.
\nThe  Collector would certainly give necessary directions  if
\nthe Assistant Collector went wrong, or if his act was guided
\nby  mala  fides.  But the more effective control on  him  is
\nfound in s. 136(2) of the Act.\tIt reads :\n<\/p>\n
If any officer of customs….\n<\/p>\n
346<\/span><\/p>\n
\t\t (a) requires any person to be searched\t for
\n\t      goods  liable to confiscation or any  document
\n\t      relating\tthereto,  without having  reason  to
\n\t      believe  that he has such goods  or  documents
\n\t      secreted about this person; or\n<\/p>\n
\t       (b)  arrests any person without having reason
\n\t      to  believe  that\t he has been  guilty  of  an
\n\t      offence punishable under section 135; or\n<\/p>\n
\t       (c)  searches or authorises any other officer
\n\t      of customs to search any place without  having
\n\t      reason to believe that any goods, documents or
\n\t      things  of the nature referred to\t in  section
\n\t      105 are secreted in that place,
\n\t       he shall be punishable with imprisonment\t for
\n\t      a term which may extend to six months, or with
\n\t      fine which may extend to one thousand  rupees,
\n\t      or with both.\n<\/p>\n
No  doubt  he  can  be prosecuted  only\t with  the  previous
\nsanction  of  the Central Government, but his  liability  to
\ncriminal prosecution for dereliction of duty under S. 105 of
\nthe  Act is certainly an effective control on his  arbitrary
\nacts.\tIt  is, therefore, clear that not only a  policy  is
\nlaid down in S. 105, but also that the acts of the Assistant
\nCollector  are effectively controlled in the  manner  stated
\nabove.\t We cannot, therefore, say that s. 105 offends\tArt.
\n14 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
Lastly,\t it  is contended that the  Assistant  Collector  of
\nCustoms in fact has not placed any material before the\tHigh
\nCourt to sustain his reasonable belief.\t The High Court,  on
\nthe  material  placed  before it, held\tthat  the  Assistant
\nCollector  had\tacted with reasonable belief  in  the  facts
\nmentioned  in that section.  There is no  justification\t for
\nour interference with the findings of the High Court.
\nIn the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
\nIt is represented to us that three years have elapsed  since
\nthe  documents\twere  seized and  it  appears  that  nothing
\nfurther\t has been done in the matter.  We hope\tand  trust
\nthat  the  Customs  Authorities will  take  appropriate\t and
\nimmediate steps to finish their investigation and return the
\ndocuments which are not required,
\nto the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
G.C.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
347<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India R. S. Seth Gopikrishan Agarwal vs R. N. Sen, Assistant Collector on 5 January, 1967 Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 1298, 1967 SCR (2) 340 Author: K S Rao Bench: Rao, K. Subba (Cj), Shah, J.C., Sikri, S.M., Ramaswami, V., Vaidyialingam, C.A. PETITIONER: R. S. SETH GOPIKRISHAN AGARWAL Vs. RESPONDENT: R. N. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-146894","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nR. S. Seth Gopikrishan Agarwal vs R. N. Sen, Assistant Collector on 5 January, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-seth-gopikrishan-agarwal-vs-r-n-sen-assistant-collector-on-5-january-1967\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R. S. Seth Gopikrishan Agarwal vs R. N. Sen, Assistant Collector on 5 January, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-seth-gopikrishan-agarwal-vs-r-n-sen-assistant-collector-on-5-january-1967\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1967-01-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-21T09:47:11+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-s-seth-gopikrishan-agarwal-vs-r-n-sen-assistant-collector-on-5-january-1967#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-s-seth-gopikrishan-agarwal-vs-r-n-sen-assistant-collector-on-5-january-1967\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"R. S. Seth Gopikrishan Agarwal vs R. N. Sen, Assistant Collector on 5 January, 1967\",\"datePublished\":\"1967-01-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-21T09:47:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-s-seth-gopikrishan-agarwal-vs-r-n-sen-assistant-collector-on-5-january-1967\"},\"wordCount\":2531,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-s-seth-gopikrishan-agarwal-vs-r-n-sen-assistant-collector-on-5-january-1967#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-s-seth-gopikrishan-agarwal-vs-r-n-sen-assistant-collector-on-5-january-1967\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-s-seth-gopikrishan-agarwal-vs-r-n-sen-assistant-collector-on-5-january-1967\",\"name\":\"R. S. Seth Gopikrishan Agarwal vs R. N. Sen, Assistant Collector on 5 January, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1967-01-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-21T09:47:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-s-seth-gopikrishan-agarwal-vs-r-n-sen-assistant-collector-on-5-january-1967#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-s-seth-gopikrishan-agarwal-vs-r-n-sen-assistant-collector-on-5-january-1967\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-s-seth-gopikrishan-agarwal-vs-r-n-sen-assistant-collector-on-5-january-1967#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"R. S. Seth Gopikrishan Agarwal vs R. N. Sen, Assistant Collector on 5 January, 1967\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"R. S. Seth Gopikrishan Agarwal vs R. N. Sen, Assistant Collector on 5 January, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-seth-gopikrishan-agarwal-vs-r-n-sen-assistant-collector-on-5-january-1967","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"R. S. Seth Gopikrishan Agarwal vs R. N. Sen, Assistant Collector on 5 January, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-seth-gopikrishan-agarwal-vs-r-n-sen-assistant-collector-on-5-january-1967","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1967-01-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-21T09:47:11+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-seth-gopikrishan-agarwal-vs-r-n-sen-assistant-collector-on-5-january-1967#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-seth-gopikrishan-agarwal-vs-r-n-sen-assistant-collector-on-5-january-1967"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"R. S. Seth Gopikrishan Agarwal vs R. N. Sen, Assistant Collector on 5 January, 1967","datePublished":"1967-01-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-21T09:47:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-seth-gopikrishan-agarwal-vs-r-n-sen-assistant-collector-on-5-january-1967"},"wordCount":2531,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-seth-gopikrishan-agarwal-vs-r-n-sen-assistant-collector-on-5-january-1967#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-seth-gopikrishan-agarwal-vs-r-n-sen-assistant-collector-on-5-january-1967","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-seth-gopikrishan-agarwal-vs-r-n-sen-assistant-collector-on-5-january-1967","name":"R. S. Seth Gopikrishan Agarwal vs R. N. Sen, Assistant Collector on 5 January, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1967-01-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-21T09:47:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-seth-gopikrishan-agarwal-vs-r-n-sen-assistant-collector-on-5-january-1967#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-seth-gopikrishan-agarwal-vs-r-n-sen-assistant-collector-on-5-january-1967"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-seth-gopikrishan-agarwal-vs-r-n-sen-assistant-collector-on-5-january-1967#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"R. S. Seth Gopikrishan Agarwal vs R. N. Sen, Assistant Collector on 5 January, 1967"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/146894","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=146894"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/146894\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=146894"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=146894"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=146894"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}