UNION OF INDIA Vs. DEVCHAND BHAI JUGUBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are filed by the Union of India and the State of Gujarat. The three respondents -accused were tried for offences punishable under Section 135 read with Section 11 -K of the Customs Act. They were convicted and sentenced to two years' RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000. The silver seized was directed to be confiscated whose value was estimated at Rs. 94,000. The convicted accused preferred an appeal and the learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the same. The aggrieved accused filed a revision in the High Court of Gujarat and same was allowed. Hence these appeals.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that on 20 -11 -1969 a car was intercepted by the Customs Officers. Accused 1 was driving the car, accused 2 was sitting in the front seat and accused 3 was sitting on the rear seat. On suspicion they searched the vehicle and found 96 silver slabs weighing about 190 kilograms. The same was seized under a panchnama and a complaint was lodged. Accused 1 admitted that they were carrying the silver and that they had transported the silver under seizure without cover of any transported voucher as required under Section 11 -K of the Customs Act. The other two accused in the car did not deny the same. The High Court acquitted the accused mainly on the ground that the transportation as such was not there in the sense that the trip was not complete and further the goods were being taken from non -specified area to another specified area and in between they were intercepted. The sum and substance of the reasoning given by the High Court appears to be that before the goods reached the destination, namely, the specified area and mere interception at another specified area cannot amount to real transportation within the meaning of Section 11 -K. In support of this reasoning, the High Court appears to have relied upon on some decisions. In a case of this nature, sometimes the intention has to be gathered from the surrounding circumstances and whether such intention to transport was there within the meaning of Section 11 -K is also a question of fact. The two courts concurrently held that Section 11 -K was attracted and in the revisional court, no interference was warranted.

(3.) HOWEVER , the violation itself is said to have taken place in the year 1969 and the complaint was filed in 1974 and under Section 135(b)(ii) of the Customs Act, a fine can also be imposed. Further in this case, the silver was also confiscated. Under these circumstances, we allow these appeals and restore the convictions under Section 135 read with Section 11 -K of the Customs Act but under the circumstances, we only impose a fine of Rs. 500 each on the accused. .