MANHAR LAL BHOGILAL SHAH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) , J.:. - This is an appeal by certificate from a judgment of the Bombay High Court upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 167 (81) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, hereinafter called the 'Act' and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with the aforesaid section and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The main point for determination is whether Section 187-A of the Act is unconstitutional on the ground that it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The facts to the extent they are necessary may be set out.

(2.) THE appellant carried on business in the name of M/s Jaihind Ex-Import Corporation as its sole proprietor. He also carried on business as a partner in another firm run under the name and style of Alran Optics (India) Corporation. THE offices of the two firm were situate at New Charni Road, Bombay. According to the case of the prosecution the appellant with the object of defrauding the Government of customs duty payable on certain goods and with a view to evading prohibition imposed on the import of such goods was a party to criminal conspiracy, some of the other parties being M/s O and K Heydegger and M/s Winter Optics in West Germany. THE conspiracy was stated to have been entered into for the purpose of acquiring possession of contraband goods such as spectacle frames, welding glasses etc. THE import of spectacle frames was totally prohibited and the import of welding glasses was greatly restricted. It was alleged that in pursuance of the conspiracy the appellant imported three consingnments by three different ships; the first one arrived by S. S. Bialystock and the other two came on 22/09/1960 and March 5, l960 by two other ships S. S. Fraunfels and S. S. Laurensherk. Out of the four cases which arrived in the first consignment two cases contained contraband goods. As regards the other two consignments one case in each consignment contained goods the import of which was prohibited. THE modus operandi was highly ingenious and interesting but we need not recapitulate the same.

(3.) WE may now refer to Section 187-A of the Act. It provides that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence relating to smuggling of goods punishable under item 81 of the Schedule to Section 167 except upon complaint in writing made by the Chief Customs Officer or any other officer of customs not lower in rank than an Assistant Collector of Customs.Items 8 and 81 of Section 167 to the extent they are material are as follows:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_119_2_1971Html1.htm</FRM>