A.R.SARKAR, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for a writ quashing the order of the Collector of Customs confiscating certain gold and imposing a fine of Rs. 1, 00, 000/- on the petitioner.
(2.) THE facts may be shortly put. Upon information received that contraband gold was being carried by certain persons by train leaving Kohzi Kode station, some Customs Officers attended the station and found one person carrying 50 gold bars. That person was then arrested. Another person standing nearby thereupon threw away a belt which was found to contain another 50 gold bars. That person was also arrested. This happened after 0.30 a.m. on March 16, 1957. Upon the basis of certain statements made by the arrested persons a watch was kept outside the house of the petitioner and about 5.15 a.m. the same morning a person was observed coming out of the house and on searching him a third lot of 50 gold bars was found on his possession. The whole lot of 150 bars was seized by the Customs Officer in charge of the operations. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had sent all this gold through the three persons with whom it was found. The petitioner made a statement to the Customs Officer after his house was searched in which he said that the gold had been supplied to him by one Sreedharan and was smuggled gold. Later he said that he had been coerced into making this statement. Notice to show cause why action should not be taken under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 was served on the petitioner. In answer to the notice he stated that he had bought the gold through a broker named Koyo for which he had paid Rs. 3, 000/- and had undertaken to pay the balance at the rate of Rs. 99/8/- per tola for 1501 tolas which was the total weight of the gold. The Collector of Customs gave full opportunity to the petitioner to explain the possession of the gold but the petitioner did not call any witness to support his explanation. The Collector, relying on Section 178A of the Sea Customs Act which puts the burden of proving that the gold was not smuggled gold on the person claiming to be entitled to it, passed the order sought to be impugned by the petitioner. He found the gold to be smuggled gold.
(3.) IN Ujjam Bai v. The State of Uttar Pradesh - Writ Petition No. 79 of 1959, this Court held that the validity of an order made by a quasi-judicial authority under a statute which was intra vires and in the undoubted exercise of its jurisdiction could not be questioned by a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. It seems to us that the present case is governed by this decision and therefore the petition is not maintainable. The order challenged was made by the Collector of Customs, a quasi-judicial authority, in the undoubted exercise of his jurisdiction under the Sea Customs Act which is fully intra vires. Even Section 178A of the Act has been held by this Court to be fully valid : See Collector of Customs v. Nathella Sampathu Chetty - AIR 1962 SC 316.;