Case: Munshi Ram Vs. Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs, New Delhi

M. Hidayatullah, J.1. Munshi Ram whose petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was dismissed summarily by the High Court of Punjab and who appeals by special leave was ordered to pay Rs. 1, 20, 000/- as penalty under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act read with Section 19 ibid. and Section 23A of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 in respect of 450 tolas of gold found on search of houses Nos. 14 and 15 of Ganganagar, Rajasthan.2. On the night between the 2nd and 3rd March, 1958 the appellant was accosted at village Kehri in India near the India-Pakistan border by the R.A.C. constables. A sum of Rs. 45/- was found on his person, but on the person of his servant Keru a sum of Rs. 22, 800/- was found. This amount was seized by the Customs authorities and on information being given to the Deputy Superintendent, Land Customs, Ganganagar, Mr. J. N. Gaur, Inspector of Customs was authorised and obtained a search warrant from a Magistrate and searched House No. 15. In that search some ammunition and 30 tolas of contraband opium were seized. Report of this was made to the police and the police obtained a warrant under Section 19/20 of the Indian Arms Act (Act XI of 1878) and searched Blocks Nos. 13, 14, 15 and 16. At that search the Magistrate was present as also a large body of Customs and Excise Officers. In this search 420 tolas of gold were found at House No. 14 and 30 tolas at House No. 15. These were made over to the Customs authorities for being dealt with by them. The search also revealed enormous quantities of ammunition, opium and charas as well. He was prosecuted in respect of the other seizures and was convicted and sentenced to a days imprisonment under the Arms Act but was acquitted in respect of some of the other charges. We are not concerned with them. A notice to show cause was issued to Munshi Ram and penalty was imposed upon him in respect of 450 tolas of gold. He filed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution which the High Court summarily dismissed.3. By the petition Munshi Ram contended that he was not given any hearing before the penalty was imposed, that penalty in excess of Rs. 1, 000/- was illegal, that Section 167(8) offended Article 14 of the Constitution and that Section 178A of the Sea Customs Act under which he was required to prove that the gold was not smuggled into India was ultra vires clauses (f) and (g) of Article 19. None of these points was pressed at the hearing before us. Munshi Ram contended before us that the places where gold was seized were not in his possession, but the finding of the Customs authorities is that the houses belong to him. There is evidence to show that he walked at the head of the search party and pointed out the places where gold lay buried and it was then dug out. These are findings of fact by the appropriate authorities. They must be accepted as correct and we cannot be asked to go into facts again. Lastly it was contended that the first warrant issued in the name of Mr. J. N. Gaur had exhausted itself after the search of House No. 15 and thereafter the search was carried out by the police under the Arms Act and the seizure of gold by the police could not attract Section 178A of the Sea Customs Act. There is no trace of such a point in the petition and it appears to have been raised for the first time in this appeal perhaps because the other points mentioned earlier stand concluded against the appellant by several decisions of this Court. The point now sought to be raised is not one on which an affidavit by the opposite side would not have been necessary if the High Court had considered it good and allowed it to be taken to trial.4. We cannot allow this new point to be raised because to do so would be to hear the appeal on a point which the High Court was not even called upon to consider.5.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]3. By the petition Munshi Ram contended that he was not given any hearing before the penalty was imposed, that penalty in excess of Rs. 1, 000/was illegal, that Section 167(8) offended Article 14 of the Constitution and that Section 178A of the Sea Customs Act under which he was required to prove that the gold was not smuggled into India was ultra vires clauses (f) and (g) of Article 19. None of these points was pressed at the hearing before us. Munshi Ram contended before us that the places where gold was seized were not in his possession, but the finding of the Customs authorities is that the houses belong to him. There is evidence to show that he walked at the head of the search party and pointed out the places where gold lay buried and it was then dug out. These are findings of fact by the appropriate authorities. They must be accepted as correct and we cannot be asked to go into facts again. Lastly it was contended that the first warrant issued in the name of Mr. J. N. Gaur had exhausted itself after the search of House No. 15 and thereafter the search was carried out by the police under the Arms Act and the seizure of gold by the police could not attract Section 178A of the Sea Customs Act. There is no trace of such a point in the petition and it appears to have been raised for the first time in this appeal perhaps because the other points mentioned earlier stand concluded against the appellant by several decisions of this Court. The point now sought to be raised is not one on which an affidavit by the opposite side would not have been necessary if the High Court had considered it good and allowed it to be taken to trial.We cannot allow this new point to be raised because to do so would be to hear the appeal on a point which the High Court was not even called upon to consider.