PUBLIC PROSECUTORMADRAS Vs. M L MODI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl. R. C. No. 843 of 1959, to take up these related proceedings in their logical order, is a proceeding in revision against the conviction of the revision petitioner (H. L. Modi), under Section 167 (8-one) of the Sea Customs Act which conviction was confirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge of Chingleput Crl. R. C. No. 842 of 1959 is a revision proceeding by the Public Prosecutor against the sentence in the case, which was reduced on appeal by the learned Sessions Judge of Chingleput to a fine of Rs. 1000 alone, setting aside the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months imposed by the trial Court.

(2.) The facts arc very simple, though the matter reveals a somewhat tangled history with regard to the facts of trial. On 14-12-1957 this revision petitioner (H. L. Modi) disembarked at Meenam-bakkam, Aerodrome from an aeroplane which flew from Bombay to Madras. He was interrogated by certain Customs officials, and his trunk was searched; with the result that underneath certain articles of clothing a tin box was found containing 247 wrist watches of "Record" manufacture, most of them new. A mahazar was duly drafted for the seizures, and, in the office of the Collector of Central Excise where the petitioner was detained for sometime, he made a statement admitting the broad facts, which is Ex, P. 2 in the case. Subsequently, the petitioner was charge-sheeted under Section 167 (8-one) of the Sea Customs. Act. At a later stage of the proceedings Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, was added as a supplemental charge, and the case was transferred to the file of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Poonamailee, as offence triable by a First Class Magistrate was involved.

(3.) But, when the case reached the stage of arguments before the learned Sub- Divisional Magistrate, it was virtually conceded that the charge relating to Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 could not be sustained; it was accordingly dropped. The essence of the case, as far as this charge is concerned, was that the revision petitioner, a businessman residing at Pondicherry, illicitly imported these identical watches prior to 1-11-1954 and later illicitly smuggled them into Indian Union limits, after the merger of Pondicherry. But frankly, the prosecution were unable to establish the identity of the watches upon which this charge depended. The charge was relinquished and, as I already stated, the revision petitioner was convicted under Section 167 (8-one) of the Sea Customs Act alone.