{"id":85720,"date":"1983-07-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1983-07-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/assistant-collector-ofcustoms-vs-babu-miya-sheikh-imam-and-ors-etc-on-28-july-1983"},"modified":"2017-01-17T00:44:32","modified_gmt":"2017-01-16T19:14:32","slug":"assistant-collector-ofcustoms-vs-babu-miya-sheikh-imam-and-ors-etc-on-28-july-1983","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/assistant-collector-ofcustoms-vs-babu-miya-sheikh-imam-and-ors-etc-on-28-july-1983","title":{"rendered":"Assistant Collector Ofcustoms &#8230; vs Babu Miya Sheikh Imam And Ors. Etc on 28 July, 1983"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Assistant Collector Ofcustoms &#8230; vs Babu Miya Sheikh Imam And Ors. Etc on 28 July, 1983<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1983 AIR  974, \t\t  1983 SCR  (3) 500<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: P Bhagwati<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Bhagwati, P.N.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nASSISTANT COLLECTOR OFCUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) BOMBAY\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBABU MIYA SHEIKH IMAM AND ORS. ETC.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT28\/07\/1983\n\nBENCH:\nBHAGWATI, P.N.\nBENCH:\nBHAGWATI, P.N.\nMISRA, R.B. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1983 AIR  974\t\t  1983 SCR  (3) 500\n 1983 SCC  (3) 447\t  1983 SCALE  (2)33\n\n\nACT:\n     Customs Act, 1962-Section 5(1) (a)(ii) -Scope of.\n     Section 135(1)(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 provides\nthat if\t any person  \"is in relation to any goods in any way\nknowingly concerned  in any fraudulent evasion or attempt at\nevasion of any duty chargeable thereon or of any prohibition\nfor the\t time being imposed under any other law for the time\nbeing in  force with  respect to  such goods\",\the shall  be\npunishable.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     In the  reasonable belief\tthat  the  respondents\twere\nsmuggling silver  out of  the country, the Customs officials\napprehended the\t respondents at\t about midnight\t while\tthey\nwere going  in a  fishing vessel off the coast of Bombay and\nfound 194  ingots of  silver  in  the  vessel.\tI  hey\twere\nprosecuted for\toffences under\tsection 120-B  Indian  Penal\nCode, section  135(1) (a)  (ii) of  the Customs\t Act,  1962,\nsection 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and\nsection 23(1A)\tof the\tForeign\t Exchange  Regulations\tAct,\n1973. While  the Magistrate  found them\t guilty of  all\t the\noffences the  High Court  on appeal set aside the conviction\nunder the  Customs Act and Foreign Exchange Regulations Act.\nThe appellant accepted the acquittal Under section 23(1A) of\nthe  Foreign  Exchange\tRegulations  Act  but  impugned\t the\njudgment of  the High  Court in\t so far\t as it set aside the\nconviction under  section 135  (1) (a)\t(ii) of\t the Customs\nAct.\n     It was  contended on behalf of the prosecution that the\naccused were  knowingly concerned with fraudulent evasion or\nattempt at  evasion of\tthe prohibition\t imposed  under\t the\nExport Trade  Control order  of 1968 on the export of silver\nwithout licence\t and that  therefore they  were guilty of an\noffence under the Customs Act.\n     The respondents,  on the other hand, contended that the\nwords \"with respect to such goods\" occurring in the section,\nrefer to  goods on which duty was chargeable as contemplated\nin the\tfirst part  of the  section and\t since no  duty\t was\nchargeable on  export of  silver it  did not fall within the\nwords \"with  respect to\t such goods\" and therefore there was\nno  fraudulent\t evasion  or   attempt\tat  evasion  of\t the\nprohibition on\texport of  silver without  a licence imposed\nunder the  Export Trade\t Control order,\t 1968  issued  under\nsection 3  of the  Imports and\tExports (Control) Act, 1947,\nwhich was punishable under the Customs Act.\n501\n     Allowing the appeal,\n^\n     HELD: Where  goods are  chargeable with  duty  and\t any\nperson is  knowingly concerned\tin any fraudulent evasion or\nattempt at  evasion of such duty, the case would fall within\nthe first  part of  the section,  but where a prohibition is\nimposed with  respect to  any goods  under the\tCustoms Act,\n1962 or\t any other  law for  the time  being in force, then,\nirrespective of\t whether duty is chargeable on such goods or\nnot, any person who is knowingly concerned in any fraudulent\nevasion or  attempt at evasion of such prohibition, would be\ncovered\t by  the  second  or third  part as the case may be.\n[506 E]\n     In the  instant case  the Export  Trade Control  order,\n1968 issued  under section  3 of  the  Imports\tand  Exports\n(Control) Act, 1947, prohibited the export of silver without\na licence.  On the  facts established by the prosecution the\naccused were  knowingly concerned  in fraudulent  evasion or\nattempt at  evasion of\tsuch prohibition on export of silver\nand their  case was  therefore covered\tby the third part of\nsection 135(1)(a)(ii).\n     The  provision  enacted  in  section  135(1)(a)(ii)  is\ndivisible into\tthree parts:  the first part postulates that\ngoods in  respect of  which the offence is committed must be\ngoods chargeable  with duty;  the second and third parts are\nnot  concerned\t with  the  question  whether  any  duty  is\nchargeable  on\t the  goods  or\t not.  They  speak  only  of\nfraudulent evasion  or attempt at evasion of any prohibition\nfor the\t time being  imposed under  the Customs\t Act or\t any\nother law  in force  in respect\t of  any  goods.  What\tthey\ncontemplate is\tthat in\t respect of  goods in question there\nmust be\t a prohibition\timposed under the Customs Act or any\nother law  for the  time  being\t in  force  irrespective  of\nwhether duty  E is  chargeable on  such goods or not and the\naccused must  be concerned  in\tany  fraudulent\t evasion  or\nattempt at  evasion of\tsuch  prohibition.  The\t prohibition\nfraudulently evaded  or sought\tto be  evaded might  be with\nrespect to  \"any goods\":  it is not necessary that it should\nbe with\t respect to  goods on  which duty is chargeable. The\nexpression \"with  respect to  such goods\": had to be used at\nthe end\t of the\t section because  the second and third parts\nstart with  the words  \"if any\tperson is in relation to any\ngoods knowingly\t concerned  in\tany  fraudulent\t evasion  or\nattempt at  evasion\". The  words \"such\tgoods\" have  clearly\nreference to \"any goods\" at the commencement of the section.\nThese words  are not  descriptive of  the kind\tof goods  to\nwhich the  first part  of the  section is  applicable. It is\ntotally impermissible  on a  plain, natural  construction of\nthe language  used in  the section  to read  these words  as\nimporting the  requirement that the goods must be chargeable\nwith duty  in order  to fall within the second or third part\nof the section. [505 E, 506 A-D]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>     CRIMINAL APPELLATE\t JURISDICTION: Criminal\t Appeal Nos.<br \/>\n416-18 of 1974.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Appeals by\t Special leave\tfrom the  Judgment and order<br \/>\ndated the 23rd\/24th August, 1973 of the Bombay High Court in<br \/>\nCrl. Appeal Nos. 68,298 &amp; 510 of 1972.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">502<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     <a href=\"\/doc\/847341\/\">N.C. Talukdar,  C. V. Subba Rao and R.N. Poddar<\/a> for the<br \/>\nAppellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>     O.P. Rana and M.N. Shroff for the State of Maharashtra.<br \/>\n     S.R. Srivastava for Respondent No. 1 in Crl. A. 416.<br \/>\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n     BHAGWATI,\tJ.   These  appeals  by\t special  leave\t are<br \/>\ndirected against  a common  judgment dated  27th August 1973<br \/>\npassed by a single e Judge of the High Court of Bombay in so<br \/>\nfar as\tit acquitted the first respondent in Criminal Appeal<br \/>\nNo. 146\t of 1978  respondent No.  1 and 2 in Criminal Appeal<br \/>\nNo. 147\t of 1974 and the first respondent in Criminal Appeal<br \/>\nNo. 418\t of 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the accused) of<br \/>\nthe offence under Section 135 (1)(a)(ii) of the Customs Act,<br \/>\n1965. The  entire controversy  between the  parties in these<br \/>\nappeals turns on the true interpretations of section 135 (1)\n<\/p>\n<p>(a) (ii)  and it  is therefore\tnot necessary to set out the<br \/>\nfacts in detail, but in order to appreciate how the question<br \/>\narises for  consideration we  may briefly  reproduce  a\t few<br \/>\nrelevant facts.\n<\/p>\n<p>     On 9th  June 1968\tat about  2  p.m.  Shri\t Mugve,\t the<br \/>\nAssistant Collector  of\t Customs,  who\twas  then  Principal<br \/>\nAppraisar  in\tthe  Directorate  of  Revenue  Intelligence,<br \/>\nBombay, received information that a fishing vessel was going<br \/>\nto load\t silver at  Ghas Bunder after 9 p.m. On that day and<br \/>\nit was\tgoing to  take the  silver to  a spot  near Khanderi<br \/>\nisland in order to put it on an Arab Dhow for despatching it<br \/>\nto Dubai.  On receipt of this information, Shri Mugve kept a<br \/>\nwatch in  a privately  owned motor launch in the stream near<br \/>\nBallard Pier  about four miles away from the shore. At about<br \/>\n11  p.m.   Shri\t Mugve\t and  the   other  customs  officers<br \/>\naccompanying him  noted that a heavily loaded fishing vessel<br \/>\nwas  proceeding\t  towards  the\t Khanderi   island   without<br \/>\nnavigational lights.  They immediately\tchased\tthe  fishing<br \/>\nvessel and asked the crew to stop it but instead of stopping<br \/>\nthe crew  increased the\t speed and  tried to  run away.\t The<br \/>\nfishing vessel\twas chased and eventually it was intercepted<br \/>\nby Shri\t Mugve and  the other  customs\tofficers.  On  being<br \/>\nquestioned the Tindel of the fishing vessel made a statement<br \/>\nthat 194  ingots of silver of the value of Rs. 92 lakhs were<br \/>\nbeing taken  towards Khanderi  island for being loaded on an<br \/>\nArab Dhow  which was  going to Dubai. The fishing vessel was<br \/>\nthereupon towed\t to Ballard  Pier and  194 ingots  of silver<br \/>\nfound in  it were seized under a Panchnama in the reasonable<br \/>\nbelief<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">503<\/span><br \/>\nthat they  were being smuggled out of India. The accused who<br \/>\nwere in the fishing vessel were also prosecuted in the Court<br \/>\nof Additional  Chief Presidency\t Magistrate 5th\t Court Dadar<br \/>\nfor offences  under Section  120 of  the Indian\t Penal Code,<br \/>\nSection 135  (1) (a) (ii) of the Customs Act 1962, Section 5<br \/>\nof the Imports and Exports (Control) Act 1947 and Section 23<br \/>\n(1 A)  of the  Foreign Exchange\t Regulation  Act  1973.\t The<br \/>\nAdditional Chief  Presidency Magistrate\t found\tthe  accused<br \/>\nguilty\tof   all  the  offences\t charged  against  them\t and<br \/>\nsentenced them\tto various  terms of  imprisonment including<br \/>\nfine. The  accused there upon preferred three appeals in the<br \/>\nHigh Court  of Bombay  against the  order of  conviction and<br \/>\nsentence  passed   against  them  by  the  Additional  Chief<br \/>\nPresidency Magistrate.\tThese appeals were heard by a single<br \/>\nJudge of  the High Court and by a common Judgment dated 27th<br \/>\nAugust\t1973   the  learned   single  Judge   confirmed\t the<br \/>\nconviction of  the accused  under Section  120 of the Indian<br \/>\nPenal  Code  and  Section  5  of  the  Imports\tand  Exports<br \/>\n(Control) Act  1947  but  set  aside  the  conviction  under<br \/>\nSection 135 (1) (a) (ii) of the Customs Act 1962 and Section<br \/>\n23 (1  A) of  the Foreign  Exchange Regulation Act 1973. The<br \/>\nAssistant Collector  of Customs accepted the judgment of the<br \/>\nlearned single\tJudge in  so far as it acquitted the accused<br \/>\nof the\toffence under  Section\t23  (1\tA)  of\tthe  Foreign<br \/>\nExchange Regulation  Act 1973  but he  was aggrieved by that<br \/>\npart of\t the judgment  which set  aside the conviction under<br \/>\nSection 135  (1) (a)  (ii) of  the Customs  Act 1962  and he<br \/>\naccordingly preferred the present three appeals with special<br \/>\nleave obtained from this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Before we\tset out the rival arguments addressed before<br \/>\nus, it\twould be convenient to reproduce Section 135 (1) (a)\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii) of the Customs Act 1962. That section reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t  135.\tEvasion\t of  duty  or  prohibitions-(1)<br \/>\n     Without prejudice\tto any action that may be taken<br \/>\n     under this Act, if any person-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t  (a) is  in relation  to any  goods in any way<br \/>\n     knowingly concerned  in any  fraudulent evasion or<br \/>\n     attempt at\t evasion of any duty chargeable thereon<br \/>\n     or of  any prohibition  for the time being imposed<br \/>\n     under this Act or any other law for the time being<br \/>\n     in force  with respect  to such goods, he shall be<br \/>\n     punishable-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">504<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t  (ii) in any other case, with imprisonment for<br \/>\n     a term  which may\textend to (three years) or with<br \/>\n     fine, or with both.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The argument of the prosecution was that on the facts proved<br \/>\nin  the\t  case\tthe  accused  were  knowingly  concerned  in<br \/>\nfraudulent evasion  or attempt at evasion of the prohibition<br \/>\non the\texport of silver without a licence imposed under the<br \/>\nExport Trade  Control  order  1968  issued  by\tthe  Central<br \/>\nGovernment under  section  3  of  the  Imports\tand  Exports<br \/>\n(Control) Act  1947 and\t they were  therefore guilty  of the<br \/>\noffence falling\t under section\t135 (1) (a) (ii) which makes<br \/>\nit penal  if any  person &#8220;is in relation to any goods in any<br \/>\nway knowingly concerned in any fraudulent evasion or attempt<br \/>\nat evasion  of any  prohibition for  the time  being imposed<br \/>\nunder any other law for the time being in force with respect<br \/>\nto such goods.&#8221; This argument was sought to be met on behalf<br \/>\nof the accused by contending that the words &#8220;with respect to<br \/>\nsuch goods&#8221; occurring at the end of Section 135 (1) (a) (ii)<br \/>\nreferred  to   goods  on   which  duty\t was  chargeable  as<br \/>\ncontemplated in\t the first part of that section and since no<br \/>\nduty was  chargeable on\t export of  silver, it\tdid not fall<br \/>\nwithin the  words &#8220;with\t respect to  such goods&#8221;  and  hence<br \/>\nfraudulent evasion  or attempt at evasion of the prohibition<br \/>\non export  of silver  without a\t licence imposed  under\t the<br \/>\nExport Trade  Control order  1968 issued  under section 3 of<br \/>\nthe  Imports   and  Exports   (Control)\t Act  1947  was\t not<br \/>\npunishable under  section 135  (1) (a)\t(ii).  It  was\tthis<br \/>\ncontention urged  on behalf of the accused which appealed to<br \/>\nthe learned  single judge  of the  High Court  of Bombay and<br \/>\nresulted in  the acquittal of the accused. The sole question<br \/>\nwhich therefore\t arises for  consideration  on\tthese  rival<br \/>\narguments  is  as  to  what  is\t the  true  meaning  of\t the<br \/>\nexpression &#8220;with  respect to such goods&#8217;. Is it limited only<br \/>\nto goods  falling within  the first  part of section 135 (1)\n<\/p>\n<p>(a) (ii),  that is goods on which duty is chargeable or does<br \/>\nit refer  to any  goods in  respect of\twhich prohibition is<br \/>\nimposed under  the Customs Act 1962 or any other law for the<br \/>\ntime being in force. The answer to this question does not in<br \/>\nour opinion  admit of  any doubt,  because the\tlanguage  of<br \/>\nsection 135  (1) (a)  (ii) is clear and explicit and one has<br \/>\nmerely to  read the  words of the section according to their<br \/>\nplain grammatical  construction to  come to  the  conclusion<br \/>\nthat the  view taken  by the  M learned\t single Judge of the<br \/>\nHigh Court  is plainly\terroneous. We  proceed to  give\t our<br \/>\nreasons for saying so, but we may point out straightway that<br \/>\nthis view taken by the learned single judge of<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">505<\/span><br \/>\nthe High Court has been subsequently overruled by a Division<br \/>\nBench of  the same High Court in the State of Maharashtra v.<br \/>\nKassam(1).\n<\/p>\n<p>     If we  analyse and\t break up  the provision  enacted in<br \/>\nsection 135(1)\t(a) (ii), it will be clear that structurally<br \/>\nit is divisible into three parts, namely:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     1.\t   If any person is in relation to any goods in<br \/>\n\t  any way knowingly concerned in any fraudulent<br \/>\n\t  evasion or  attempt at  evasion of  any  duty<br \/>\n\t  chargeable thereon,  he shall\t be  punishable<br \/>\n\t  with imprisonment for a term which may extend<br \/>\n\t  to three years or with fine or both.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     2.\t   If any person is in relation to any goods in<br \/>\n\t  any way knowingly concerned in any fraudulent<br \/>\n\t  evasion  or\tattempt\t at   evasion  of   any<br \/>\n\t  prohibition for  the time being imposed under<br \/>\n\t  the Customs  Act 1962\t with respect  to  such<br \/>\n\t  goods,   he\t shall\t be   punishable   with<br \/>\n\t  imprisonment for  a term  which may extend to<br \/>\n\t  three years or with fine or both.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     3.\t   If any person is in relation to any goods in<br \/>\n\t  any way knowingly concerned in any fraudulent<br \/>\n\t  evasion  or\tattempt\t at   evasion  of   any<br \/>\n\t  prohibition for  the time being imposed under<br \/>\n\t  any other  law for  the time\tbeing in  force<br \/>\n\t  with respect\tto  such  goods,  he  shall  be<br \/>\n\t  punishable with imprisonment for a term which<br \/>\n\t  may extend  to three\tyears or  with fine  or<br \/>\n\t  both.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The ingredients of the offence under section 135(1) (a) (ii)<br \/>\nwould clearly  be satisfied if the case falls within any one<br \/>\nof these  three parts. Each of these three parts is distinct<br \/>\nand independent\t of the\t other two  and whether a case falls<br \/>\nwithin any  one part or not has to be judged by reference to<br \/>\nthe ingredients\t of that part and not of any other part. The<br \/>\ningredients of one part cannot be projected in the other two<br \/>\nparts. The first part deals with a case where in relation to<br \/>\nany goods  a person is knowingly concerned in any fraudulent<br \/>\nevasion or attempt at evasion of any duty chargeable on such<br \/>\ngoods. Obviously, therefore, the first part. postulates that<br \/>\nthe<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">506<\/span><br \/>\ngoods in  respect of  which the offence is committed must be<br \/>\ngoods chargeable  with duty.  But the second and third parts<br \/>\nare not\t concerned with\t the question  whether any  duty  is<br \/>\nchargeable on  the goods  or not. These two parts speak only<br \/>\nof  fraudulent\t evasion  or   attempt\tat  evasion  of\t any<br \/>\nprohibition for the time being imposed under the Customs Act<br \/>\n1962 or any other law for the time being in force in respect<br \/>\nof any\tgoods. What  these two\tparts contemplate is that in<br \/>\nrespect of the goods in question there must be a prohibition<br \/>\nimposed under  the Customs Act 1962 or any other law for the<br \/>\ntime being in force it being totally irrelevant whether duty<br \/>\nis chargeable  on such goods or not, and the accused must be<br \/>\nknowingly concerned  in any fraudulent evasion or attempt at<br \/>\nevasion of  such prohibition.  The prohibition\tfraudulently<br \/>\nevaded or  sought to  be evaded\t may be with respect to &#8220;any<br \/>\ngoods&#8221; and  it is  not necessary  that\tit  should  be\twith<br \/>\nrespect to goods on which duty is chargeable. The expression<br \/>\n&#8220;with respect to such goods&#8221; had obviously to be used at the<br \/>\nend of the section because the second and third parts of the<br \/>\nsection start  with the\t words &#8220;if any person is in relation<br \/>\nto any\tgoods &#8230;.  knowingly concerned\t in  any  fraudulent<br \/>\nevasion or  attempt at evasion&#8221;. The words &#8220;such goods&#8221; have<br \/>\nclearly reference  to &#8220;any goods&#8221; at the commencement of the<br \/>\nsection. These\twords are  not descriptive  of the  kind  of<br \/>\ngoods to  which the first part of the section is applicable.<br \/>\nIt is totally impermissible, on a plain natural construction<br \/>\nof the\tlanguage used  in section,  to read  these words  as<br \/>\nimporting the  requirement that the goods must be chargeable<br \/>\nwith duty  in order  to fall within the second or third part<br \/>\nof the section.\n<\/p>\n<p>     We are  therefore of  the view  that  where  goods\t are<br \/>\nchargeable to  duty and any person is knowingly concerned in<br \/>\nany fraudulent\tevasion or  attempt at evasion of such duty,<br \/>\nthe case  would fall  within the  first part of the section,<br \/>\nbut where there is a prohibition imposed with respect to any<br \/>\ngoods under  the Customs  Act 1962  or any other law for the<br \/>\ntime being  in force,  then, irrespective of whether duty is<br \/>\nchargeable on  such  goods  or\tnot,  any  person  knowingly<br \/>\nconcerned in any fraudulent evasion or attempt at evasion of<br \/>\nsuch prohibition,  would clearly be covered by the second or<br \/>\nthird part  as the  case may  be. Here\tthere was  clearly a<br \/>\nprohibition on\texport of  silver without a licence, imposed<br \/>\nby the\tExport Trade Control order 1968 issued under section<br \/>\n3 of  the Imports  and Exports (Control) Act 1947 and on the<br \/>\nfacts established  by the  prosecution-facts which could not<br \/>\nbe  and\t  were\tnot   disputed-the  accused  were  knowingly<br \/>\nconcerned in fraudulent evasion or attempt<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">507<\/span><br \/>\nat evasion of such prohibition on export of silver and their<br \/>\ncase was  therefore plainly  and indubitably  covered by the<br \/>\nthird part  of section A 135(1) (a) (ii). The learned single<br \/>\nJudge of  the High Court was consequently in error in taking<br \/>\nthe view  that the  accused were  not guilty  of the offence<br \/>\ncharged under 135(1) (a) (ii).\n<\/p>\n<p>     We accordingly  allow these  appeals preferred  by\t the<br \/>\nAssistant Collector  of Customs,  set  aside  the  order  of<br \/>\nacquittal passed  by the  learned single  Judge of  the High<br \/>\nCourt and  restore the\torder passed by the Additional Chief<br \/>\nPresidency Magistrate  convicting the  accused under section<br \/>\n135(1) (a)  (ii) of the Customs Act 1962 and sentencing them<br \/>\nto various terms of imprisonment and fine.\n<\/p>\n<pre>P.B.R.\t\t\t\t\t    Appeals allowed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">508<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Assistant Collector Ofcustoms &#8230; vs Babu Miya Sheikh Imam And Ors. Etc on 28 July, 1983 Equivalent citations: 1983 AIR 974, 1983 SCR (3) 500 Author: P Bhagwati Bench: Bhagwati, P.N. PETITIONER: ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OFCUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) BOMBAY Vs. RESPONDENT: BABU MIYA SHEIKH IMAM AND ORS. ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT28\/07\/1983 BENCH: BHAGWATI, [&hellip;]<\/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-85720","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Assistant Collector Ofcustoms ... vs Babu Miya Sheikh Imam And Ors. Etc on 28 July, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/assistant-collector-ofcustoms-vs-babu-miya-sheikh-imam-and-ors-etc-on-28-july-1983\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Assistant Collector Ofcustoms ... vs Babu Miya Sheikh Imam And Ors. Etc on 28 July, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/assistant-collector-ofcustoms-vs-babu-miya-sheikh-imam-and-ors-etc-on-28-july-1983\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1983-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-16T19:14:32+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\\\/assistant-collector-ofcustoms-vs-babu-miya-sheikh-imam-and-ors-etc-on-28-july-1983#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/assistant-collector-ofcustoms-vs-babu-miya-sheikh-imam-and-ors-etc-on-28-july-1983\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Assistant Collector Ofcustoms &#8230; vs Babu Miya Sheikh Imam And Ors. Etc on 28 July, 1983\",\"datePublished\":\"1983-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-16T19:14:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/assistant-collector-ofcustoms-vs-babu-miya-sheikh-imam-and-ors-etc-on-28-july-1983\"},\"wordCount\":2223,\"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\\\/assistant-collector-ofcustoms-vs-babu-miya-sheikh-imam-and-ors-etc-on-28-july-1983#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/assistant-collector-ofcustoms-vs-babu-miya-sheikh-imam-and-ors-etc-on-28-july-1983\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/assistant-collector-ofcustoms-vs-babu-miya-sheikh-imam-and-ors-etc-on-28-july-1983\",\"name\":\"Assistant Collector Ofcustoms ... vs Babu Miya Sheikh Imam And Ors. Etc on 28 July, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1983-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-16T19:14:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/assistant-collector-ofcustoms-vs-babu-miya-sheikh-imam-and-ors-etc-on-28-july-1983#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/assistant-collector-ofcustoms-vs-babu-miya-sheikh-imam-and-ors-etc-on-28-july-1983\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/assistant-collector-ofcustoms-vs-babu-miya-sheikh-imam-and-ors-etc-on-28-july-1983#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Assistant Collector Ofcustoms &#8230; vs Babu Miya Sheikh Imam And Ors. Etc on 28 July, 1983\"}]},{\"@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":"Assistant Collector Ofcustoms ... vs Babu Miya Sheikh Imam And Ors. Etc on 28 July, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/assistant-collector-ofcustoms-vs-babu-miya-sheikh-imam-and-ors-etc-on-28-july-1983","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Assistant Collector Ofcustoms ... vs Babu Miya Sheikh Imam And Ors. Etc on 28 July, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/assistant-collector-ofcustoms-vs-babu-miya-sheikh-imam-and-ors-etc-on-28-july-1983","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1983-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-16T19:14:32+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\/assistant-collector-ofcustoms-vs-babu-miya-sheikh-imam-and-ors-etc-on-28-july-1983#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/assistant-collector-ofcustoms-vs-babu-miya-sheikh-imam-and-ors-etc-on-28-july-1983"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Assistant Collector Ofcustoms &#8230; vs Babu Miya Sheikh Imam And Ors. Etc on 28 July, 1983","datePublished":"1983-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-16T19:14:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/assistant-collector-ofcustoms-vs-babu-miya-sheikh-imam-and-ors-etc-on-28-july-1983"},"wordCount":2223,"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\/assistant-collector-ofcustoms-vs-babu-miya-sheikh-imam-and-ors-etc-on-28-july-1983#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/assistant-collector-ofcustoms-vs-babu-miya-sheikh-imam-and-ors-etc-on-28-july-1983","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/assistant-collector-ofcustoms-vs-babu-miya-sheikh-imam-and-ors-etc-on-28-july-1983","name":"Assistant Collector Ofcustoms ... vs Babu Miya Sheikh Imam And Ors. Etc on 28 July, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1983-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-16T19:14:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/assistant-collector-ofcustoms-vs-babu-miya-sheikh-imam-and-ors-etc-on-28-july-1983#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/assistant-collector-ofcustoms-vs-babu-miya-sheikh-imam-and-ors-etc-on-28-july-1983"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/assistant-collector-ofcustoms-vs-babu-miya-sheikh-imam-and-ors-etc-on-28-july-1983#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Assistant Collector Ofcustoms &#8230; vs Babu Miya Sheikh Imam And Ors. Etc on 28 July, 1983"}]},{"@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\/85720","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=85720"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/85720\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=85720"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=85720"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=85720"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}