NARAYAN MANJANNA SHANBHOG Vs. SECTRETORY OF STATE FOR INDIA
LAWS(BOM)-1929-3-25
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on March 22,1929

NARAYAN MANJANNA SHANBHOG Appellant
VERSUS
SECTRETORY OF STATE FOR INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This is a Letters Patent Appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Murphy dismissing summarily an appeal from Mr. Sen, the District Judge of confirming the decision of the first ass Subordinate Judge at Karwar. The question arises about a Maehwa which was confiscated by the customs authorities under the Sea Customs Act, Appeals do not lie to the High Court from the decision of the customs authorities. This Court, speaking generally, has no jurisdiction in revenue matters having regard to the Government of India Act, But what we are entitled to see is that the principles of natural justice have been carried out and provided that is done by the revenue authorities, then this Court is no longer concerned with the actual decision arrived at by the authorities as to whether it is right or wrong.
(2.) This is a limited jurisdiction which is well known in certain branches of the civil law. For instance, as regards the expulsion of members of a club, where the decision rests under the rules with the members of the club, speaking generally the Court is only concerned to see that the principles of natural justice have been observed, including in particular that the member is given notice of the charge and given an opportunity of meeting it, One recent instance of this is the Salvation Army case in the Chancery Division where Mr. Justice Eve directed that the Council of the Salvation Army should give an opportunity to General Booth of being heard in support of his case before the Council actually passed a particular resolution depriving the General of his position as head of the Army.
(3.) Naturally then when one comes to criminal or quasi-criminal cases involving penalties, that applies all the more strictly. Here the appellant was found guilty by the Collector of Salt Revenue and on his appeal to the Central Board of Revenue they held that the confiscation was valid, and that moreover the appellant had been given a fair opportunity of putting forward his case. Mr. Sen, the learned District Judge, arrived at the same conclusion in the subsequent civil suit which the appellant brought to set aside the order of confiscation and for damages for illegal confiscation of the Machwa.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.