MOHANLALSHAMJISONI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These criminal appeals by special leave granted under Article 136 of the Constitution of India are preferred by the appellant questioning the correctness of the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Criminal Revision Applications Nos. 98 and 97 of 1978 whereby the High Court set aside thejudgment and orders dated 2-1-1978 of the Sessions Judge, Kutch at Bhuj made in Criminal Revision Applications Nos. 46 and 45 of 1976 confirming the orders dated 19-6-76 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kutch in Application Exh. Nos. 94 and 98 in Criminal Cases Nos. 929 and 930 of 1973 respectively. The factual matrix that have relevance to the questions raised and canvassed at the hearing may be briefly stated.

(2.) A raid conducted by the officers of the Customs Department in the business-cum-residential premises of the appellant on 17-9-1971 resulted in the seizure of some gold Lagadis bearing foreign marks, primary gold, gold ornaments and silver bricks, coins etc. to the value of about Rs. 8,48,422/-. During the said raid a sum of Rs. 79,000/- was also seized. In respect of this incident, the Assistant Collector of Customs filed two separate complaints on 26-11-1973 against the appellant in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Anjar, being Criminal Cases Nos. 929 and 930 of 1973 for offences punishable (1) under the provisions of the Customs Act 1962, and (2) under the Gold Control Act, 1968. After examination of the prosecution as well as the defence witnesses and recording of the statements of the appellant under Section 342 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code) arguments were advanced on behalf of the appellant/accused. The prosecution at this stage before commencing its arguments filed two applications in both the -cases under Section 540 of the old Code (corresponding to Section 311 of the new Code) requesting the trial Court to recall Mr. Mirchandani (the Seizing Officer) for further examination and to issue summons to two more witnesses, namely, Mr. K. K. Das, Assistant Collector of Customs and the Deputy Chief Officer (Assayer) of Mint Master, Bombay for examination either as prosecution witnesses or as Court witnesses as contemplated under the said provision. The learned Judicial Magistrate passed two orders rejecting the applications which orders, on revision by the respondents were confirmed by the Sessions Judge. On being aggrieved by the said revisional orders, the Union of India (the first respondent herein) preferred two Criminal Revision Applications Nos. 97 and 98 of 1978. The second respondent, namely, the State of Gujarat also preferred two other Criminal Revision Applications Nos. 124 and 125 of 1978. The High Court by its Common Judgment, though heavily criticised the conduct of the prosecution for its deplorable and lethargic attitude in not carefully and promptly conducting the proceedings allowed all the Criminal Revisions for the reasons assigned therein holding thus:

(3.) Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, these two appeals are preferred by the appellant. In this context, it is pertinent to note that the appellant has not directed any appeal against the judgment of the High Court in allowin the two other Revision Applications Nos. 9 124 and '25 of 11978 filed by the Gujarat Government which were also allowed by the High Court.