(1.) The appellant aged 23 was arrested on 9-4-1967 by the Railway Police at the Bombay Central Railway Station as he was hurriedly trying to get into a second class compartment of the Frontier Mail bound for Delhi. It appears that the manner in which he was trying to enter the second class compartment and his nervousness on being questioned by a Railway C. I. D. Police Officer, although the appellant had a ticket on him, aroused suspicion so that the appellant was detained. On a search of his person at the Police Station in the presence of Panchas. nine bars of gold with foreign markings were found secreted in especially made concealed pockets of his trousers. These were seized by the Railway Police. After further questioning by the Police, the appellant was summoned before Shri L. A. Digama Additional Chief Inspector of Customs. Bombay, where his statement under Sec. 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 was recorded on 10-4-1967. In that statement. the appellant admitted the recovery of gold bars from his person and stated that he had agreed with one Pannalal to carry them for delivery at Delhi for a sum of Rs. 100/- to be said to the appellant. He stated that, from what Pannalal had told him and also from the weight of the bars, he knew that he was carrying gold. He stated that his father was also with him, but, as nothing incriminating was recovered from the father, he was allowed to go away. He also admitted that he knew that transporting of gold like this was a criminal offence.
(2.) The appellant was prosecuted and convicted by the Presidency Magistrate of Bombay under Section 135 (b) of the Customs Act of 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment. Charges under the Defence of India Rules were also preferred against him but he was acquitted of these. The High Court of Bombay, after carefully re-examining the whole evidence in the case. had affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant:but. the appellant had obtained special leave to appeal to this Court.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant had urged before us that the conviction of the appellant is vitiated on three grounds.