STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MOHANLAL JITAMALJI PORWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A passenger travelling by a train (Respondent No. 1 herein) who had adorned his waistline with a waistchain (kandora) weighing 820 grammes, which according to the prosecution, was made of pure gold and was coated with mercury so as to give an appearance of being made of silver was acquitted by the trial Court relying on the evidence of a licensed gold dealer as a defence witness, who, as per the narration in para 17 of the judgment of the trial Court, stated that :

(2.) The occasion for approaching this Court has been provided by the view taken by the High Court in regard to the charge for an offence under sec. 135(1) read with sec. Ill of the Customs Act. The charge against respondent No. 1 was that he was concerned with acquisition, carriage, keeping or concealing with the goods which were liable to be confiscated under sec. 111 having regard to the fact that there was a prohibition against the import into India of goods which were found in his possession namely pure gold of the specified fineness i.e. 99.60 or 24 carat. It needs to be recalled that respondent No. 1 had adorned himself with a gold chain which was coated with mercury in order to give it an. appearance that it was made of silver. The trial Court disregarded the evidence of P. W. 3, the goldsmith who certified that the chain was made of pure gold and that the presumption under sec. 123 of the Customs Act could not be raised as in the opinion of the learned Magistrate. P. W. 1 Mahida, Superintendent of Customs who had made the seizure could not have "entertained a reasonable belief that the article in question was made of smuggled gold. The trial Court also found fault in regard to the proof of report of the Mint Master that the article in question was made of pure gold of the specified fineness.

(3.) The High Court confirmed the acquittal on all the three grounds. The request made by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for adducing additional evidence under sec. 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in order to remove the alleged formal defect in the proof of the Mint Master was rejected. That is why the matter has been brought before this Court by way of the present appeal.