# Tlte Commissioner of Income-1t1:>:, /If odros v. K.T. M.T.M . .Abdul Ka)'Oom - **Citation:** [1962] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 545 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1960-07-01 - **Bench:** J. L. Kapur, II. HlDAYATULLAH, J.C. Shah - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/tlte-commissioner-of-income-1t1-if-odros-v-k-t-m-t-m-abdul-ka-oom-2440 - **Pages:** 13 ## Headnote Oustom•-Seizure t( documenu-Warrant · issued by Magi•trate-Ouatodf of 4ocume11t8-lf cuato1r1B aut!iorities •ntitled to-Facili11'8 for iMjHction-Sea Customs 'A.ct, 1878 ( 8 of 187 8), 8. 172,-0otle Ill Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act 5 of 1898), 8. 96, Sclleds/e V 1'orm VIII. The respondent wao suspected of having exported dutiable goods in contraYendon of the Sea Customs Act and of having secreted docmnentl ia connection therewith in two prem iJes. An applicaP<>n - made w the Chief Presidency 1961 Tlte Commissioner of Income-1t1:>:, /If odros v. K.T. M.T.M . .Abdul Ka)'Oom Hid•yatullah J. 1961 N ovnnb~r 24. JHJ .Uohd. s,,aju4di• v. R . C. Mis/I,. 546 SUPREME COURl' REPORTS [1962] SUPP. Magistrate under s. 172 of the Act for issuing warranU to search the premise.• for the documenu. The warrants were issued and after search ~ large number of documents were seized by the Cunoms authorities. They then applied to the Magistrate to retain possession of the documents but he ordered that the documents would remain in the custody of the court and that the authorities would be given facilities to inspect them. After having inspected some of the documents the Customs authorities again applied to the Magistrate for custody of the documents and in the alternative for allot· ment of a separate room where they could inspect the documents in privacy, but the Magistrate rejected both the prayen. On revision the High Court held that the Customs authorities were entitled to the custody of the documents and directed that they be handed over to them immediately. Held, that the goods and documents seized under a warrant issued by a Magistrate undrr s. 172 of the Sea Customs Act must be produced before the Magistrate who issued the warrant and it is for him to decide how the goods and documents shall be disposed of. He may make them over ro the Customs authorities or keep them in his custody. The second paragraph of s. 172 provides that a warrant issued under s. 172 shall have the same efl"ect as a search warrant is•ued under the law relating to criminal procedure. The form prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure requires the seized articles to be brought into court, and the Magistrate has jurisdiction to decide about their custody. The Magistrate's order that the documents should remain in his custody and be scrutinised in his court was thus legal. 8. K. Sriba•tat'a v. GajaMnd ( 1956) 60 C. W. N. 1073, approved. C'aletdla Motor Cycle C'o. v. C'ollec.or of C'ualom• ( 1955) 60 C. W. N. 67 and Collector of C'mtoms v. Calcutta Motor and Cycle Co. A. I. R. 1958 Cal. 682, not approved. C&llll.INAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Crimi· na.l Appeal No. 158 of 1960. Appeal from the judgment and order dated July I, 1960, of the Calcutta High Court in Cr. Revision No. 500 of 1960. N. C. Chatterjee and P. K. Chatterjee, for the appellant. N. S. Bindra and T. M. Sen, for the respondent. t - ___ ; I (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 547 1961. November 24. The Judgment of the Court was deliered by HIDAYATULLAH, J.-This appeal is by certificate under Art. 134 ( 1) ( c) of the Constitution granted by the High Court of Calcutta against its judgment and other dated July 1, 1960. The appellant, Mohammad Serajuddin/ is the managing partner of Messrs. Serajuddin and Co., of No. 19A, British Indian Street and of p-16, Bentick Street, Calcutta. The said firm carries on business as exporters of mineral ores,. and also possesses some mines. The business of the appellant involve~ the export of manganese ore. Till April, 1948, there was no export duty on manganese ore. On April 19, 1948, export duty at ad 'Valorem rates was imposed on manganese ore. This was withdrawn in August, 1954, but was re-imposed in September, 1956 and was withdrawn again in November, 1958. During this period, the appellant exported manganese ore, among other mineral ores. On November 28, 1959, an application was made under s. 172 of the Sea Customs Act to the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta request ## Text (l) S.C.R. SUPREME COUR'l' REPORTS 545 for reserving the coastline for future fi8hing wa~ the price of chanks, with which the respondent did its business. That• amount was paid to obtain an enduring asset in the shape of an exclusive right to fish, and the . payment was not related to · the chanks, which it might or might not have brought to the surface in this speculative business. The rights were not trasferable, but if they were and the firm had sold them, the gain, if any, would have been on the capital side and not a realising of the chanks as stock-in-trade, because none had been bought by the firm, and none would have been sold by it. In our opinion, the decision of the High Court, with all due respect, WllAI, therefore, erroneous, and the ear lier decision of the Full Bench of the same High Court was ri@ht in the circum1tanceH of the case. In the result, the appeal is allowed; but there will be no order about cost . . BY CoURT. In accordance with the majority judgment of the Court, the appeal is allowed, but there will be no order about costs. MOHAMMAD SERAJUDDIN fl, R. C. MISHRA (J. L. KAPUR, II. HlDAYATULLAH and J.C. SHAH, JJ.) Oustom•-Seizure t( documenu-Warrant · issued by Magi•trate-Ouatodf of 4ocume11t8-lf cuato1r1B aut!iorities •ntitled to-Facili11'8 for iMjHction-Sea Customs 'A.ct, 1878 ( 8 of 187 8), 8. 172,-0otle Ill Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act 5 of 1898), 8. 96, Sclleds/e V 1'orm VIII. The respondent wao suspected of having exported dutiable goods in contraYendon of the Sea Customs Act and of having secreted docmnentl ia connection therewith in two prem iJes. An applicaP<>n - made w the Chief Presidency 1961 Tlte Commissioner of Income-1t1:>:, /If odros v. K.T. M.T.M . .Abdul Ka)'Oom Hid•yatullah J. 1961 N ovnnb~r 24. JHJ .Uohd. s,,aju4di• v. R . C. Mis/I,. 546 SUPREME COURl' REPORTS [1962] SUPP. Magistrate under s. 172 of the Act for issuing warranU to search the premise.• for the documenu. The warrants were issued and after search ~ large number of documents were seized by the Cunoms authorities. They then applied to the Magistrate to retain possession of the documents but he ordered that the documents would remain in the custody of the court and that the authorities would be given facilities to inspect them. After having inspected some of the documents the Customs authorities again applied to the Magistrate for custody of the documents and in the alternative for allot· ment of a separate room where they could inspect the documents in privacy, but the Magistrate rejected both the prayen. On revision the High Court held that the Customs authorities were entitled to the custody of the documents and directed that they be handed over to them immediately. Held, that the goods and documents seized under a warrant issued by a Magistrate undrr s. 172 of the Sea Customs Act must be produced before the Magistrate who issued the warrant and it is for him to decide how the goods and documents shall be disposed of. He may make them over ro the Customs authorities or keep them in his custody. The second paragraph of s. 172 provides that a warrant issued under s. 172 shall have the same efl"ect as a search warrant is•ued under the law relating to criminal procedure. The form prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure requires the seized articles to be brought into court, and the Magistrate has jurisdiction to decide about their custody. The Magistrate's order that the documents should remain in his custody and be scrutinised in his court was thus legal. 8. K. Sriba•tat'a v. GajaMnd ( 1956) 60 C. W. N. 1073, approved. C'aletdla Motor Cycle C'o. v. C'ollec.or of C'ualom• ( 1955) 60 C. W. N. 67 and Collector of C'mtoms v. Calcutta Motor and Cycle Co. A. I. R. 1958 Cal. 682, not approved. C&llll.INAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Crimi· na.l Appeal No. 158 of 1960. Appeal from the judgment and order dated July I, 1960, of the Calcutta High Court in Cr. Revision No. 500 of 1960. N. C. Chatterjee and P. K. Chatterjee, for the appellant. N. S. Bindra and T. M. Sen, for the respondent. t - ___ ; I (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 547 1961. November 24. The Judgment of the Court was deliered by HIDAYATULLAH, J.-This appeal is by certificate under Art. 134 ( 1) ( c) of the Constitution granted by the High Court of Calcutta against its judgment and other dated July 1, 1960. The appellant, Mohammad Serajuddin/ is the managing partner of Messrs. Serajuddin and Co., of No. 19A, British Indian Street and of p-16, Bentick Street, Calcutta. The said firm carries on business as exporters of mineral ores,. and also possesses some mines. The business of the appellant involve~ the export of manganese ore. Till April, 1948, there was no export duty on manganese ore. On April 19, 1948, export duty at ad 'Valorem rates was imposed on manganese ore. This was withdrawn in August, 1954, but was re-imposed in September, 1956 and was withdrawn again in November, 1958. During this period, the appellant exported manganese ore, among other mineral ores. On November 28, 1959, an application was made under s. 172 of the Sea Customs Act to the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta requesting that warrants be issued to search the two premises already mentioned, on the allegation that documents relating to and connected with "illegal exportation of dutiable goods which were actually exported in contravention of the Sea Customs Act" were secreted in the above premises. The Chief Presidency Magistrate issued two warrants returnable on December 5, 1959. Subsequently, time for return was extended to December 15, 1959. It appears that the search was carried with somewh_at undue zest, and the Chief Presidency Magistrate, on December 12, 1959, limited the search to documents relating to manganese ore and also fixed the time of the day during which the search could be made. Meanwhile, applications for withdrawal of the search warrants were unsuccessfully made by lHJ Mohd, Serqjuddin v. R C.Mishra Hidayatu/lah J. 1961 A-foJiJ. S1rojllliJin v. R. C. Alis/Ira Hi"'1otu1Wo J. 548 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1962] SUPP. the appellant, and, in the end, the Customs authori· ties seized 959 dorumcnt~, registtrs, books, ek. 'l he Customs authorities wished to retain theRc documents in their own custody for the purpose of scrutiny, and on December 15, 1959, an applkatiou was made to obtain this permission. On the same day, the appellant al8o applied for return of documents unconnected with the export of manganese ore and for retention of the remaining documents in the custody of the Court. The Chief Presideriry Magistrate passed an order the same' day that the dooumentB would be kept in the custody of the Court and the Customs authoritieH would be giv1·n facilities to inspect them in the Court premises. This inepection commenced on December I 7, l 95U. We may now pass over applications made by the appellant for the return of documents unconncct· ed with manganese ore and by the Customs authori. ties for extension of time and for handing over all the documents to thrm. Suffice it to say that the Magistrate declined both the requests, and extended time for inspection till April 9, 1960. On February 6, I 960, the Cuetoms authorities filed a last applil'a· tion for getting custody of the documents and for certain facilities for proper inspection in secrecy, if the inspection was to he done in the Court premises. This application was summarily dismissed by the Magistrate the same day. In the la.st application made by the Customs authQritiee, they Ii.ad, in addition to asking for the cuetoly of the documents, said that the documents were many, and they had to be scrutinised with reference to volumimous records maintained by the Cu.toms and Shipping Departments and also the shipping documents. They also said that certain witnesses and informers had to be questioned, and that it was not p088ible to complete the work within reasonable time, if the inspection had to be carried on, not only during Court hours but • (1) $.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 549 in the presence of the representatives of the appell· ant. They had, in the alternative, asked for a separate room where tha scrutiny and discussions between the Customs Officers could take place in privacy and for facilities for inspection of the records even after Court hours, because during the day, the staff at their disposal was limited. Both these matters, of course were disposed of summarily; but the learned Magistrate had, in his earlier orders, said that he could give them only such room as he could spare, since he had not unlimited accommodation at his disposal. The Magistrate also observed that he was, in no event, allowing the Customs authorities to take the documents away, which had been seized as a result of warrants issued by him. He claimed that the documents belonged to him, and could be inspected only as, when and where he ordered. Against the order of the Magistrate, an application for revision was filed by the Customs authorities in the Calcutta High Court. According to the practice of that High Court, the Chief Presidency Magistrate was also called upon to show cause against the application. He showed cause on the same lines. The application in revision was disposed of on July l, 1960 by the High Court, and it is that order which is appealed against, with certificate. The High Court, in its order, observed that the Chief Presidency Magistrate had "placed real difficulties in their way of speedily and properly finishing the task of scrutinising the documents", that due consideretion was not given by the Chief Presidency Magistrate to this expect of the case, and holding that the Customs authorities under the law were entitled to the custody of the documents seized, ordered that all the documents (bar 63 documents) should at once be handed over to the CtJStoms authorities, with an imperative direction to JIMJ M olul. StTajuddin v. R. C. Ml1hra Hidayalullah J. 1981 Mohd, StrajrJdin v. R. C. MU!rra HU!ayarulla~ .T. 550 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962) STTPP. • complete the scrutiny of the documents within t~ree mo1Jths from the date the order of the High d'ourt rE>achcd the Chief Presidency Magistraw. In this llJlpP,a], two questions arise. The first is whether the Customs authorities are entitled to th~ custody of records seized by them under a search warrant iSBued under s.172 of the Sea Customs Act, and the Magistrate cannot deny them the right to carry away the documents for their scrutiny. If the answer to this question is in the negative, a second question arises w:Qether the order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate gave inadequate facilities to the Customs authorities for inspection and scrutiny of the documents. We shall deal with the question of law first. The Customs authorities claim that the documents seized by them can be retained by them for performing their statutory duties. They say that there is no difference between contraband goods and documents relating to contraband goods, and the same procedure should apply. when goods are seized without a warrent, the Customs authorities are not required under the Act to make them over to a l'lfagistrate; when documents or goods are seized on a warrant, they can only enter the premises for effecting a search, armed with the warrant of a Magistrate. According to the Customs authoritiea, once a Magistrate has issued a warrant, his connection with the search comes to an end, and whatever is seized as a result of the search is to be disposed of by the Customs authorities in the discharge of their duties to adjudicate whether any contraband goods have been brought into the country against the Customs bw. It is contended that just as the good~ se.ized by them under the Act are not required to be produced before a Magistrate, so also documents seized under a warrant from a Magistrate need not be produced before him. They concede, however, that a Magistrate has jurisdiction (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPOR'.tS 551 over his warrant, which he can withdraw, annul or modify. It appears that, in the Calcutta High Court, there is a conflict of opinion on this point, which arises on two expects of s.172 of the Sea. Customs Act. That section reads: "Any Magistrate may, on application by a Customs collector, stating his belief that dutiable or prohibited goods or any documents relating to such goods are secreted in any place within the local limits of the jurisdiction such Magistrate, issue a warrant to search for such goods or documents. Such warrant shall be execut-0d in the same way, and shall have the same effect, as a search-warrant issued under the law relating to Criminal Procedure." In an unreported ease of the Calcutta High Court, Calcutta Motor & Cycle Co. v. Collector of Customs('), Debabrata Mookerjee, J., has held that search warrants must be issued, when the Customs Officer states his belief etc., and the Magistrate is not required to form his own opinion. He has further held that warrants issued under s.172 a.re not impressed with all tht> characteristics and features of a warrant under s.96 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and that the form of the warrant prescribed under the Code can be suitably changed under s. 555 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Unfortunately, the judgment of Mookerjee, J., was not produced before us, and the above is a summarry made in the judgment under appeal. The matter also came before the High Court in two other cases, and the judgments can be read in some unauthorised reports. In Calcutta Motor Cycle Co. v. Collector of Customs ('), Sinha, J., de~lt with the matter under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The view of Sinha, J., was upheld by the Division (IJ Criminal Revision Case No. 693 of 1955. (2) ( 19SS) 60 C, W, N, 67, 1'61 Mohd. Sero.juddin Y. R. C. Mishra Hid•ryaJ111la/J J. 1981 Molid. Snqjuddm .. JI. c. Muhr• Hid•_,atullah J. 552 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. Bench in Collector of Customs v. Calcutta .Motor & Cycle Co. ('). It is held in that case that a general sea.ch warrant without specifying the goods or documents is a good warrant, and that the warr~nt for search implirs the power to seize goods and docnmcnts. Sinha, J. also observes obiter that the goods or documents seized as a result of the search need not be produced before the Magistratr., and may be retained by the Customs authorities, and, further, that the warrant should be suitably amended enable the Customs authorities not only to search for goods or documents but also to seize them. Tn S. K. Sribaslm:a· v. Gajananrl ('),Sen, J., dissent from the observations of Sinha, .r., and holds that when goods or documents arc seized in execution of a search warrant, the ultimate disposal of the books &'.Id papers must be under the Magistrate's order, and that there is nothing in the Sea Customs Act to show that the Customs-collector is the final authority to dispose of the papers and books. He also does not accopt the contention that, as there is no pendmg proreeding in the Court, the production of the goods and documents seized is not necessary before the Court. He futher holds that the Magistate ha;i the power to insist that the inspection shall be completed within a. reasonable time, and papers and books not required for the purpose of the ease are returned promptly to the party. At p. 1078, the learned Judge observes: "After seizure by the police in execution of the search warrant, the goods and documents must normally be produced before the oourt issuing·thn sea.rah warrant. That is implied by the issue of a search warrant by a Magistrate for sear<'h of a place within his jurisdiction and is oxprcssly provided for in the prescribed forms for search warrant under sections 96 and 98 of the Code." In the judgment under appeal, the view expressed hy Sinha, J., has been preferr- (ll A. I. R. 1958 Cal. 682. (2) (1956) 60 C. W. N. 1073. .. (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 553 ed. The learned Judge has referred to the language of s. 172, and has contrasted it with the language of s. 96 of the Code. He observes that the words "wherein the court has reason to believe" do not occur in 1. 172 of the Sea Customs Act, and the Magistrate, therefore, has no discretion but to issue the search warrant in spite of the words "may issue" in that section. He however, goe3 on to say that the Magistrate, in issuing the search warrant, acts judicially, 'Ind may examine whether the belief is really entertained by the Customs Officer or not, or whether there is any mala fide aetion. Except for these two matters, the Magistrate has no other, discretion. Once the documents have been seized, the second paragraph of s. 172 begins to operate, and the Magistrate's responsibility is at an end. He agrees with Debrab'tta Mookerjee, .J,, that all the provisions of the Code do not apply, and after seizure, the action of the Customs authorities is independent and uncontrolled by the Code. He, however, concedes that "the ultimate responsibility" of the Magistrate and his "overall control" still remain. But he states that "the immediate control" must remain with the Customs authorities, who need not produce the documents before the Magistrate, be. cause seizure would be meaningless, if they did not have the power to scrutinise and inspect the documents in their own way. The pendency of a proceeding before a Magistrate as a condition precedent to the issue of a warrant is no longer a matter for consideration, after the decision of the Privy Council in Cl,arke v. Brojendra Kishore Roy Ghoiidhury ('). A Magistrate thus has jurisdiction the moment an application for warrant is made before him, and proceedings on that application can be. said to have started under the Code. Section 172 of the Sea Customs Act by fl) (1912) I.L.R 1 39 <;al. 9S3 (P.G.). 1961 Afohd, Strajuddin •• R. C. 1.ll ishra HidayatuUnh J. J96J Mohd. &rajudrlin v. B. 0. Mislrra Hid•JIJlUl/ah J. 554 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS (1962) SUPP. 1 its seoond paragraph brings into operation the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, a.nd, therefore, the Magistrate's jurisdiction is both under s. 172 of the Sea. Customi Act and the Criminal Procedure Code. There can be no doubt also that unlike s. 96, the Magistrate is to be guided by the belief on the Customs authorities, though he may prevent undue harassment in cases, where it can be seen that the belief is not entertained by the Customs officer or his action is mala .fide. The Ma.gistra.te is oerta.inly entitled to satisfy himself about the belief of the Customs Officer, but is not required to make up his own mind independently of that belief. T•J this ex;ent only is the matter in the control of the Magistrate, before he issues the wa.rra.nt. After the' w.i.rrant)is issued, it is an order of the Magistrate Cll<\bling the Customs a.thoritics to ta.kc action, for without warrant, they cannot enter any housn or premises. The warrant of the Magistrate, so to speak, opnns the door for entry into a. house or premises. ancl the authority to do so is based upon th~ Ma.giatrate's order. The forms prescribed under the Code require that articles seized a.s a result of the wa.rra.nt should be brought into Court. a.nd a. 1\fagistra.te, who issues a. search warrant, is entitled to see that his wa.rra.nt is not abused, and has been properly executed. In a suitable case, of course, a Magistrate ma.y amend the warrant dispensing with the production of the goods or documents before him. That, however, would be in a. clear case only; but if the Magistrate so desires, he need not amend the form, a.nd may keep the control of the goods or document.a in himself. This ho may find necessary to do, so that the warrant issm·d by him is not abused or made the instrument of harassment. A condition, therefore, in the warrant that the goods or documents should be produced before the Ma.gistra.te must be complied with, and once the goods or documents ba.ve been produced before I I (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 555 the Magistrate, it is for him to decide, in the circumstances of each case, whether he would make them over to the Customs authorities or not. Where the Customs authorities have been somewhat indiscriminate in their seizure, the Magistrate may find it necessary to have the goods or documents scrutinised 1mder his control, so that goods or documents not reall.v subject to the Sea Customs Act a.re not retained for an unduly long period. The words "ultimate responsibility" and • "overall control" used in the judgment under appeal would mean nothing, if they did not imply the power of the Magistrate, to which we have referred. If they mean anything, they mean the power of the Magistrate to see that his own warrant is not used in a miinner which he did not contemplate. The second paragraph of a. 172 of the Sea Customs Act, which applies the Criminal Procedure Code, says that the warrant shall be· executed in the same way and sh~ll have the same effect as a search warrant issued under the Criminal Procedure Code. The execution of a warrant is one thing, and its effect is another. In talking of the effect, s. 172 of the Sea Customs Act intends to apply not only the Criminal Procedure Code but also the forms prescribed, and if the form says that ·the goods or documents should be produced before the Magistrate to be dealt with under -his direction, then that effect necessarily flows from the words of that section. In our opinion, the view expressed by Sen, J., is correct. In view of what we have said abqve, it is clear that the Magistrate's order that the 959 documents, which were seized, should remain in his custody and be scrutinised in his Court, was also correct. No doubt, the documents seized are manv, and a still more voluminous record will have to". be gone into, to find out the relevance of the documents ~e~zed. But that is a matter of \}e~il bearin$ upon Mohd. S1rajuddin •• R. C. Mishra Hidayatul/a\ J. Mnluf. Snoj•ddin •• R. C. Mishra Hidayatullah J. 5513 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. the scrutiny and inspection of the seized documents and not upon their custody. If difficulties arise, (and they muAt have), they are capable of being removed by a judicious action on the part of the i\fagi~trate and colloboration on the part of the CuAtoms authoriticA. This is a matter of expediency rather than of law. In our opinion, though the learned Magistrate wag l<~gally right in retaining control OVC'r the documents seized, he was unduly narrow in hiA view in affording facilities for inspection ancl f'Crntiny. P<>rhaps, his action was somewhat jm;tified, if one looks only at the inordinate delay and the lc-isurcliness with which the inspection was being made. Bnt ?ifagistrates, even though th<'y may desire expedition, must not frustrate other departments of Gov.,rnment in discharging their legitim"te duties under the Act. On this part of the case, learned counsel for the Costoms n.uthorities was very frank and accommodating. He Haid that the Customs authorities are not keen on the custody of the documents but only on their proper inspection in privacy, because they have to bring in various documents for comparison and have to examine witnesses and informers. He said that if a separate room in the Court premises were given to the Customs authorities, and they were allowed to ha.ve inspection even after Court hours, they would be able to complete the inspection within three to four months time. Tho difficulties of the Customs anthorities are also many. Their supervisory staff has to deal not only with this ca.se but many others, an<:! in view of the volume of tecords which they have to go through in oc,nnoction with this case, it is obvious enough that time would be needed. In our opinion, we must discharge the order of the learned Judge that the documents be handed over to the Customs authorities. ·1 he Magistrate is right in keeping these doclPllents in his immedi- .. (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 557 ate custody; but we must direct that due facilities for inspection should be afforded to the Customs authoritfos in the shape of a separate room and suitable furniture and time extended beyond the ordinar.v Court hours. Inspection should be carri· ed on in the presence of a Court official, and adequate privacy for questioning witnesses etc., should be afforded to the Customs authorities, whenever they find it necessary. In our opinion, if these facilities are granted-. and we direct that they be granted-a period of four months from the date this order reaches the Magistrate should prove enough. 'Ve, therefore, set aside the order for the handing over of the doouments to the Customs authorities, and make a direction for the disposal of the records, as stated above. We may add that this order does not apply to the 63 documents, which the Customs authorities have already agreed to return to the party. Appeal allowed. THE MANAGEMENT OF TOCK.LAI EXPERIMENTAL STATION REPRESENTED BY THE INDIAN TEA ASSOCIATION v. THE WORKMEN AND ANOTHER (And connected appeal) (P. B. GAJENDRAGADK.AR, A. K. SARKAR and K. N. WAN