Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (0.28 seconds)Section 18 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Section 147 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Section 174 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
State Of Gujarat vs Mohanlal Jitamaljiporwal & Anr on 26 March, 1987
The Supreme Court in State of Gujarat
Vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal & Another (supra) relying
upon its earlier judgment in Pukhraj (supra), held that if prima
facie there are grounds to justify the belief the courts have to
accept the officer's belief regardless of the fact whether the court
of its own might or might not have entertained the same belief. It
was further held that whether or not the officer concerned had
entertained reasonable belief under the circumstances is not a
matter which can be placed under legal microscope, with an over-
indulgent eye which sees no evil anywhere within the range of its
(Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 01:11:35 AM)
(15 of 23) [CW-2031/2018]
eyesight. The circumstances have to be viewed from the
experienced eye of the officer who is well equipped to interpret
the suspicious circumstances and to form a reasonable belief in
the light of the said circumstances.
Section 19 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 14 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
R. S. Seth Gopikrishan Agarwal vs R. N. Sen, Assistant Collector on 5 January, 1967
Learned counsel further relied on the judgment of
the Supreme Court in R.S. Seth Gopikisan Agarwal Vs. R.N.
Sen, Assistant Collector of Customs & Central Excise,
Raipur and Others, 1983 (13) ELT 1434 (SC) and submitted
that it has been held therein that the non-mention of reasons in
itself does not vitiate the order. Referring to Para 9 of the
aforesaid judgment which deals with Section 100 Cr.P.C., it is
argued that Section 12F(2) of the Act of 1944 makes it clear that
"the provision of Cr.P.C. relating to search and seizure shall, as far
as may be applied to search and seizure under this Section.
Learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Income Tax Officer Vs. M/s. Seth Brothers & Others,
(1969) 2 SCC 324 and submitted that therein it was held that
any irregularity in the course of entry, search and seizure
committed by the Officer acting in pursuance of the authorisation
will not be sufficient to vitiate the action taken, provided the
Officer has in executing the authorisation acted bona fide. It was
also held that mere fact that a large number of documents have
been seized is not a ground for holding that all documents seized
are irrelevant or the action of the officer is mala fide.
Pukhraj vs D. R. Kohli on 15 March, 1962
The Supreme Court in State of Gujarat
Vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal & Another (supra) relying
upon its earlier judgment in Pukhraj (supra), held that if prima
facie there are grounds to justify the belief the courts have to
accept the officer's belief regardless of the fact whether the court
of its own might or might not have entertained the same belief. It
was further held that whether or not the officer concerned had
entertained reasonable belief under the circumstances is not a
matter which can be placed under legal microscope, with an over-
indulgent eye which sees no evil anywhere within the range of its
(Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 01:11:35 AM)
(15 of 23) [CW-2031/2018]
eyesight. The circumstances have to be viewed from the
experienced eye of the officer who is well equipped to interpret
the suspicious circumstances and to form a reasonable belief in
the light of the said circumstances.