Amiya Kumar Mookerji, J. - (1.) This appeal is by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Preventive Officer and Union of India against the judgment of K. L. Roy, J., dated 26-11-1969, quashing an authorisation under Section 105 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and, all proceedings taken thereunder.
(2.) The respondent is an existing company under the Companies Act, 1956, and has its registered office at 11, Give Row, Calcutta. M/s. Sahu Jain Ltd., has also its registered office in the said premises. On the nth of May, 1968, the appellant No. 2 along with several persons searched the said premises in pursuance to an authorisation issued by the appellant No. 1 under Section 105 of the Act. In course of the said search, various books, papers, documents belonging to the respondent company were seized by the appellant No. 2. On 16th of May, 1968, the respondent moved this Court on an application under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the validity of the order of authorisation dated 11-5-1958 under which the preventive officer of the Customs department, appellant No. 2, was authorised under Section 105 of the Act to enter into the premises of the respondent to search for, seize and take possession of things, goods and the documents, having reasons to believe by the appellant No. 2 that the goods liable to confiscation under the said Act were secreted in the premises of the respondent. A Rule Nisi and an interim order of injunction restraining the appellants from examining or looking into any of the seized documents were obtained by the respondent. The said Rule was heard and made absolute by K. L. "Roy, J. The learned Judge found that in view of the averments made in the affidavit affirmed by the appellant No. 1, that, in consequence of the information received, he had reasons to believe that certain offences under the Act and other Acts had been committed by the respondent and certain other companies of the -Sahu Jain Group, and that certain goods, documents and things relevant to proceedings for enquiry into the said offences were secreted in the said premises but the learned Judge quashed the authorisation upon the view that appellant No. I had not applied his mind in issuing the impugned authorisation under Section 105 of the Act as the spaces requiring the particulars of the goods, documents and things, which would be useful for and/or relevant to any proceedings contemplated under the Act were left entirely blank; no particulars of the intended proceedings were given and even the name of the respondent, which was suspected of the alleged offence, did not appear in the authorisation form. The appellant being aggrieved against the said judgment, preferred this present appeal.
(3.) It is contended by Mr. Kar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, that the learned Judge of the Court below having found that the Assistant Collector of Customs had reasons to believe that the offence under the Customs and other Acts have been committed by the respondent and that the goods, documents and things relevant to the proceedings were secreted in the premises of the respondent, the learned Judge was wrong in coming to the conclusion that the Assistant Collector of Customs did not apply his mind in issuing the impugned authorisation under Section 105 of the Act, and quashing the same on that ground. Mr. Kar further contended that the power of search granted under Section 105 of the Act Was a power of general search. It was not possible for the officer to predict or even know in advance what documents could be found in the search and which of them would be useful or necessary for the proceedings. So, it was not possible to give specification or description of the documents in advance. It was also not necessary to give the name of the respondent in the authorisation because the search was with respect to the premises. It was not incumbent upon the customs officer to give reasons of his belief before issuing an authorisation under Section 105 of the Act. In support of his contentions Mr. Kar referred to two decisions of the Supreme Court Durgaprasad v. H. R. Gomej, reported in AIR 1966 SC 1209, and Gopi Kisen Aganval v. R.N.Sen.;