ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS Vs. PAOLA MORTUZZI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITION praying that in the circumstances stated therein the High Court will be pleased to cancel the bail granted to the respondent/accused in Crl. M. P. No. 695/87 on the file of the court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E. O. I. Egmore , Madras -8. [order]. -This petition coming on for hearing upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. P. Rajamanickam , Central Government Prosecutor on behalf of the petitioner and/or Mr. R. Srinivasan for M/s murthy and Vasan , Advocates for the respondent, the court made the following order. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Madras, who is investigating into O. S. No. 388/87 R. D. registered against the respondent who was found in possession of 20 gold bars valued at R s. 7, 38, 610, while arriving at the Madras Airport on 29. 9. 1987, kept concealed in a medical band tied around his waist and for which he had no valid permit, has filed this application under Sections 439 (2) and 482 Cr. P. C. to set aside the order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E. O. I.), Madras in Cr l. M. P. No. 695 of 1987, granting bail to the respondent.

(2.) FACTS briefly are: On 29. 9. 1987, the respondent alighted at the International Airport at Madras from Singapore and was found to have concealed in a medical belt tied around his waist 20 gold bars of foreign origin, totally weighing 200 tolas valued at Rs. 7, 38, 610/ -. The respondent had no valid permit or authority to carry the gold. The gold bars were seized under a mahaza r in the presence of independent witnesses. He was examined and in the statement made by him, he had stated that he bought the gold bars at Singapore out of his own money and brought them to India by concealing them on his person and that he wanted to sell them in India on profit. A case was registered against him for an offence under Sec. 135 of the Customs act. In a separate statement made on the next day, the respondent has stated that the gold bars were given to him, by somebody at Singapore, to be delivered at Madras for a monetary remuneration of Rs. 4000/-and that he did not know the name of the person who gave him the gold bars at singapore or the person to whom the bars had to be delivered. The respondent was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. The respondent filed Crl. M. P. No. 695 of 1987 before the Additional Chief metropolitan Magistrate, E. O. I, Madras for bail.

(3.) PER contra, Thiru K. Srinivasan , Learned Counsel for the respondent, contended that the present application itself was not maintainable since the respondent had not yet come out on bail and therefore, no violation of condition of bail could be put forward by the petitioner, that the order of the learned magistrate showed that he had questioned the respondent and was satisfied that the respondent would not abscond and that no discrimination can be made against foreign nationals, even in the matter of bail.