(1.) The Union of India on being aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench rendered in Criminal Application No. 120/79 allowing the revision and setting aside the conviction and sentence by disturbing the concurrent finding of facts on the basis of which the trial court convicted the accused Nos. I and 2 (respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in this criminal appeal) under S. 135 of the Customs Act and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for two years and also imposed upon each of them a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default thereof to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months, which conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court were confirmed by the appellate court.
(2.) The accusations on the basis of which the respondents Nos. I and 2 took their trial, are that on 13-9-73 at Nagpur Railway Station, they were found in possession of 26 wrist watches, and 11 wrist watches of foreign make respectively and carrying, removing, disposing, keeping and concealing the above wrist watches which both the respondents knew or had reason to believe that the said watches were liable for confiscation under the Customs Act and thereby they committed an offence punishable under S. 135 of the Customs Act. Both the trial court as well as the appellate court, on the evaluation of the evidence, found that both the respondents had committed the offence within the mischief of S. 135 of the Customs Act but the learned single Judge of the High Court for the reasons given in his judgment has found thus:
(3.) The learned Additional Solicitor General, Mr. KTS Tulsi took us very meticulously through recorded evidence and the impugned judgment as well as the judgments of the trial court and the appellate court and contended that the prosecution has satisfactorily established the charge by satisfactorily establishing all the necessary ingredients that are required to constitute an offence within the meaning of S. 135 of the Customs Act. In support of his contention he has relied upon three decisions of this Court which we presently refer to. In State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal, (1987) 2 SCC 364 this Court has laid down the law as follows: