RAM SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision, the petitioner challenges his conviction by Shri H. L. Sikka, Sub Divisional Magistrate, New Delhi, under section 126-P(2)(iv) of the Defence of India Rules as amended in 1963 and sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200.00, affirmed on appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, by.means of his order dated 23-12-1968. The circumstances leading to the initiation of this case are stated in the complaint dated 4-8-1965 (Exhibit P.A.) made by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Delhi. According to this complaint, on 24-3-1964, Inspector Police, Incharge Kotwali Police Station, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, detained Ram Singh s/o Doonger Singh on suspicion that he was carrying contraband gold on his person. On being searched in the presence of the Central Excise Officers and independent witnesses, 13 gold Passas of 10 grammes each were recovered from him. The passas bore inscription of Manilal Chaman Lal & Co., Bombay. On interrogation. Ram Singh S/o. Doonger Singh stated that he had purchased these Passas on the same day from Ram Singh S/o Jaggu Mal Dalal. The latter Ram Singh was also interrogated and on 24-3-1964, he admitted having sold 13 Passas to the former Ram Singh S/o Doonger Singh. These 13 Passas were a part of 16 Passas which had been brought to Ram Singh S/o Jaggu Mal by some one for disposal, the remaining three Passas having been retained by Ram Singh s/o Jaggu Mal for the purposes of his niece's marriage. On search of the person of Ram Singh S/o Jaggu Mal, three Passas of 10 grammes each with similar inscription were also recovered. Both Ram Singhs were made accused persons, Ram Singh S/o Doonger Singh being accused No. 1 and Ram Singh S/o Jaggu Mal accused No. 2. Then occurs the following averment in the complaint:

(2.) Shri Omesh Saigal, the learned Magistrate dealing with the case, discharged Ram Singh S/o Jaggu Mal on 15-12-1965 after recording the evidence led by the prosecution holding that the said accused had with him the quantity of gold permissible under the law. Charge under Rule 126-H(d) of the Defence of India (Amendment) Rules was, however, framed against Ram Singh S/o Doonger Singh because, prima fade, the case was found to have been made out against him by the learned Magistrate.

(3.) The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate dealing with the case against the present petitioner (Ram Singh S/o Doonger Singh) considered the evidence of the prosecution and observed that there was no doubt about 13 Passas of gold having been recovered by the Inspector of the Central Excise from the present petitioner on 24-3-1964. The plea of the accused that he had only five Passas of gold whereas the remaining Passas of gold were in the possession of two of his brothers was not believed by the learned Sub. Divisional Magistrate on the ground that before the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, this plea had not been taken. The possession of 13 Passas of gold each weighing 10 grammes was held by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate to be in excess of the permissible limit of 50 grammes as mentioned in Rule 126-1(7) (b) of the Defence of India (Amendment)Rules 1963. The accused questioned the admissibility of his statements recorded by the Central Excise Authorities on the ground that at that time, the police officers were also present, but the learned Magistrate did not express any opinion on this objection on the view that the recovery of gold from the accused was in excess of the permissible limits. On this basis, the present petitioner was convicted under Rule 126-P(2)(iv) and sentenced as mentioned above.