In Re: Jesiah Decruz

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Nov 29, 1945

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/808069

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/808069
Court: Chennai
Decided On: Nov 29, 1945
Subject: criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - that the person who filed the complaint though he satisfied the description of a 'Customs Collector' according to Section 3(c), Sea Customs Act, was not the person who is entitled to assess the penalty leviable in respect of this particular transaction under the Sea Customs Act.

Key legal issue: criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Jesiah Decruz

Legal References

Reported In: AIR1946Mad242

Excerpt

- - that the person who filed the complaint though he satisfied the description of a 'customs collector' according to section 3(c), sea customs act, was not the person who is entitled to assess the penalty leviable in respect of this particular transaction under the sea customs act......in respect of an offence punishable under rule 90b, defence of india rules. the prosecution case was that gold was exported out of india and thereby the accused committed an offence punishable under rule 90b. it was made an offence only under the defence of india rules and rule 90b, as amended, has a proviso, which runs thus:provided that where in respect of any contravention of this rule the customs collector is of opinion that the penalties provided by the said act are inadequate, he may make a complaint to a magistrare having jurisdiction....it is urged that in this ease the person who filed the complaint is not the proper person who can file the complaint as per that proviso. it is admitted that the complaint was filed by a person who answers to the description 'customs collector' as defined in section 3(c), sea customs act. but what is urged is that the person who signed the complaint is not the person who can decide the case if a penalty is to be levied under the sea customs act in respect of the gold said to have been exported in this case; that the person who filed the complaint though he satisfied the description of a 'customs collector' according to section 3(c), sea customs act, was not the person who is entitled to assess the penalty leviable in respect of this particular transaction under the sea customs act. this is a case in which the prosecution desires a heavier sentence to be imposed and for deciding what the punishment is that has to be imposed in this case it is not necessary that the person who has to decide it should have the power to levy the penalty. the maximum penalty leviable under the act is known and, if such penalty is not adequate in the opinion of the person who is empowered to prosecute, it will be open to him without having the power to levy the penalty to decide the point and file the complaint, and that is what has been done in this case. i see no reason to interfere. i accordingly dismiss this petition.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.

1. This petition arises out of a prosecution by the Sea Customs Department in respect of an offence punishable under Rule 90B, Defence of India Rules. The prosecution case was that gold was exported out of India and thereby the accused committed an offence punishable under Rule 90B. It was made an offence only under the Defence of India Rules and Rule 90B, as amended, has a proviso, which runs thus:

Provided that where in respect of any contravention of this rule the Customs Collector is of opinion that the penalties provided by the said Act are inadequate, he may make a complaint to a Magistrare having jurisdiction....

It is urged that in this ease the person who filed the complaint is not the proper person who can file the complaint as per that proviso. It is admitted that the complaint was filed by a person who answers to the description 'Customs Collector' as defined in Section 3(c), Sea Customs Act. But what is urged is that the person who signed the complaint is not the person who can decide the case if a penalty is to be levied under the Sea Customs Act in respect of the gold said to have been exported in this case; that the person who filed the complaint though he satisfied the description of a 'Customs Collector' according to Section 3(c), Sea Customs Act, was not the person who is entitled to assess the penalty leviable in respect of this particular transaction under the Sea Customs Act. This is a case in which the prosecution desires a heavier sentence to be imposed and for deciding what the punishment is that has to be imposed in this case it is not necessary that the person who has to decide it should have the power to levy the penalty. The maximum penalty leviable under the Act is known and, if such penalty is not adequate in the opinion of the person who is empowered to prosecute, it will be open to him without having the power to levy the penalty to decide the point and file the complaint, and that is what has been done in this case. I see no reason to interfere. I accordingly dismiss this petition.

Same Parties In Re: Jesiah Decruz vs Same Subject criminal

criminal

In Re: Jesiah Decruz

Brief this judgment before chambers

Case Summary

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Legal References

Excerpt

Full Judgment

Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.

Continue Your Research

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.