JAMATRAJ KEWALJI GOVANI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On November 16, 1964, the shop of the appellant Govani situated in Suklaji Street. Bombay was searched by the Enforcement Branch of the Reserve Bank of India. Nothing in. criminating from the point of view of the Reserve Bank was found in the shop but a large number of watches, clocks, cigarette lighters, cameras, transistors, tape recorders etc. were found. The officers i the Enforcement Branch appear to have informed the customs authorities. The Assistant Collector Customs thereupon issued a warrant for the search of the premises under S. 105 of the Customs Act, 1962. This warrant was made out in the name of Preventive Additional Chief Inspector R. C. Dutta, Preventive Inspector P. N. Ramchandani and Preventive Officers Ranade, Thakur and Menon It was stated in the warrant that there were reasons to believe that prohibited and dutiable goods liable to confiscation and documents and things useful for and relevant to the proceedings were secreted in the shop. The officers were according charged with the duty to search and seize such prohibited and dutiable goods, documents and things in the shop under Section 110 of the Act. The search was effected and the goods abovementioned were seize. Some of the watches were returned as they were old and given for repairs. The other watches were seized. Proceedings for the confiscation of the goods and for penalties were started by Dutta and a summons under Section 108 of the Act was issued to Govani. He could not prove that the goods had borne the necessary customs duties. The Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay thereupon sanctioned his prosecution under Section 135 (b) of the Act.

(2.) The trial took place before the Presidency Magistrate (19th Court). Bombay, Govani was charged on two counts, under Section 135 (a) and Section 135 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962. Two witnesses were examined at the trial. Preventive Officer, Customs, Ranade deposed to the seizure of the goods. As the search was under the direction of Dutta, Ranade admitted in cross-examination that he was told by Dutta that information had been received that Govani had secreted some contraband articles in his shop. He admitted that Dutta decided which of the watches were to be seized and which were to be released. Ranade, however, stated that he had asked Govani to produce bills regarding the watches but Govani produced none. He had also asked Govani to produce the account books but Govani again did not produce any. The second witness Nanvani only proved the seizure of the contraband goods and the exhibits in the case. He was not cross-examined.

(3.) Govani did not lead any evidence in his own behalf. He was examined under Section 342 of the Code, of Criminal Procedure and admitted that he had neither imported the watches nor paid customs duty on them. He stated that he had purchased the watches from certain customers, sometimes one and sometimes two or three from the same customer. He had no defence evidence to lead but filed a written statement and claimed that no offence had been disclosed against him in the prosecution case as laid before the Court. He analysed section 135 of the Act and stated that the gist of the offence was that he should have known or have had reason to believe that the contraband goods had not been customed. He stated that under section 123 of the Act, the burden would have been on him to prove that the goods had been customed provided the goods had been seized under the Act in the reasonable belief that they were smuggled goods but no witness had deposed to such belief. This statement was filed on July 15, 1965. The following day, the prosecution applied for the examination of Dutta, Inspector of Customs, Bombay as a court witness in the interests of justice. This application was opposed by Govani. The Magistrate, however, by his order dated July 28, 1965, ordered the examination of Dutta under Section 540 of the Code. Dutta stated that he had seized the watches in the reasonable belief that they were smuggled. Govani was thereafter examined again and was given an opportunity to lead defence evidence. He stated that he had nothing further to add and no defence evidence to lead. The Magistrate after considering the arguments, convicted Govani under Sections 135 (a) and 135 (b) of the Customs Act awarding him a sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000 (in default, further rigorous imprisonment for six months) on each of the two counts. The watches were also ordered to be confiscated.