LACHMANDAS KUNDANDAS DODANI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Lachmandas Kundandas Dodani, and another person by name, Narsimhan Govinda Rajan, were prosecuted before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Delhi, for offences under section 120-B Indian Penal Code read with section 5 ot the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947 and section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878. The facts of the prosecution case against them may be briefly stated:

(2.) The petitioner was an Indian national who was doing business in Singapore in the name of two firms, namely, (1) Lachman Jewellers and (2) Luxury Corporation. These firms were situated at 25 High Street, Singapore. These firms were dealing in radios, watches, cameras, fountain pens and other luxury goods. Their customers in India were mostly the foreign embassies and consulates. The petitioner's firms used to send goods to these embassies and consulates both by air as well as by sea and these parcels were delivered to the officials of the embassies and consulates without being opened by the Customs authorities on the strength of the certificates granted by these embassies and consulates. This was part of the diplomatic privileges enjoyed by the accredited officials of the embassies and consulates. Mr. O.P. Nadal, was the charge d affaires of the Uruguyan Legation in the year 1960-61. The petitioner's co-accused Rajan was an employee in the Uruguyan Legation. One Miss Usha Advani also ioined this Legation in March, 1960 as a Social and Cultural Secretary to the Legation. In April 1961, Mr. Nadal and Miss Usha Advani went to Singapore and visited the petitioner's firms to make some purchases. The petitioner invited them for dinner. At this dinner, the petitioner made a proposal to Mr. Nadal that he would be sending parcels containing watches to Mr. Nadal from time to time and that these parcels should be received by Mr. Nadal and later delivered to the petitioner when he visited India. For affording this facility, the petitioner offered to pay Mr. Nadal commission at the rate of Rs. 10 per watch Mr. Nadal agreed to this proposal.

(3.) In pursuance of this arrangement, the petitioner sent parcels from time to time addressed to Mr. Nadal. All these parcels were delivered to Mr. Nadal without being opened by the Customs authorities on the strength of letters issued by Mr. Nadal. these parcels ostensibly contained goods like clothes, radios, transistors, washing machines, refrigerators, fans etc. But as a matter of fact, these parcels contained watches which were to be disposed of in India. This was the method of smuggling watches into India, as the import of watches was prohibited under the Imports and Exports Control Act. The petitioner also visited Delhi from time to time and collected these parcels and paid to Mr. Nadal the agreed commission, the petitioner's co-accused Rajan as well as Usha Advani were aware of these smuggling activities and were actually parties to this conspiracy.