G.N.Das, J. - (1.) This is an appeal against the judgment of Bose, J. dated 16-5-1952. The facts as found by the learned Judge may be stated as follows:
(2.) The respondent Jagannath Bhandar carried on business as Commission Agents at Bhagalpur. They dealt with various articles including betel-nuts which were imported by merchants in East Pakistan into India. The respondent employed their agents for release of the goods at Katihar and retained these goods under their custody as commission agents. On 19-3-1951, appellant 1 who is the Inspector of Land Customs, Central Preventive Circle, seized 138 bags of betelnuts and detained the same and made a preliminary order restraining the respondent from disposing of the same. On 27-3-1951, a notice was served upon the respondent by the appellant 2, Superintendent of Land Customs calling upon the respondent to show cause why action should not be taken in terms of Section 7 of the Land Customs Act read with Section 167 (8) of the Sea Customs Act. On 15-6-1951, the respondent through his agent showed cause before the Land Customs Collector, Calcutta. On 21-6-1951, the Collector of Land Customs, Calcutta, directed release of 59 bags of betelnuts which had been confiscated and fixed redemption fee of Rs. 5000 /-. On 30-9-1951, the respondent filed an application for review of the order of the Land Customs Collector dated 21-6-1951. This matter was heard on 18-10-1951, when the Land Customs Collector made an order for further release of 61 bags and confiscated only 17 bags of betelnuts, the redemption fee being fixed at Rs. 1100. On 14-12-1951, the respondent moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and obtained a Rule directing the appellant to refrain from giving effect to the order made on 18-10-1951 and to release 138 bags of betelnuts. It may be pointed out that the mention of 138 bags of betelnut in the Rule issued by this Court was a mistake and the intention of the order was to release the 17 bags of betelnuts which had been confiscated. This Rule came up for hearing before Bose J. on 16-5-1952, and by his order of that date the Rule was made absolute on the ground that as Bhagalpur was situated far away from the foreign frontier, the Land Customs authorities had no jurisdiction to detain the goods in Bhagalpur and to make an order for confiscation subject to payment of redemption fee.
(3.) Mr. Kar, learned counsel, who appeared in support of the appeal has contended that the view taken by Bose J. is not correct. The question depends on a construction of certain provisions of the Land Customs Act 1924 (Act 19 of 1924). I shall refer to the Sections of the Act which have a bearing on the question before us. Section 3 (1) of the Land Customs Act -- hereinafter called the Act -- empowers the Central Government by a notification in the Official Gazette to appoint for any area adjoining a foreign frontier and specified in the notification, a person to be the Collector of Land Customs and such other persons as it thinks fit to be Land Customs Officers. Section 2 (e) defines the expression 'foreign frontier' to mean the frontier separating any foreign territory from any part of India. Section 2 (f) defines 'foreign territory' to mean any territory declared under Section 5 of the Tariff Act 1894 (Act 8 of 1894) to be foreign territory for the purposes of this Act. Section 2 (g) of the Act defines 'land customs area' to mean any area adjoining a foreign territory for which a Collector of Land Customs has been appointed under Section 3.;