RAM CHANDRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON questions arise in these two revisions and therefore, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) THE Applicants, Shiv Narain and Ram Chandra, were going on a rickshaw on 10 -4 -1964, when they were stopped by Sri G.S. Bakhshi S.S.I., LIU in Budaun. Sri Bakhshi had previous information that the Applicants were carrying contraband gold. On a search being made, five Pansas of gold, a sum of Rs. 12,800/ - were recovered from the possession of Shiv Narain and five Pansas of gold and a sum of Rs. 50/ - were recovered from the possession of Ram Chandra. All the gold Pansas bore the inscriptions "Paris Funders -9990". The Customs authorities at Bareilly were informed on telephone of this seizure and on the next day, i.e., 11 -4 -1964, Sri Har Chand Singh Ahluwalia, Deputy Superintendent, Central Excise and Customs, cams from Bareilly and took possession of the gold pansas. Subsequently, proceedings were held and the gold was confiscated Under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962. The confiscation order has become final and I am not concerned with it. The Applicants were tried at two separate trials before a magistrate, first class, Budaun, for offences punishable Under Section 135(b) of the Act for being in possession of and for being concerned in carrying and keeping the Pansas of gold, knowing or having reason to believe that they were liable to confiscation Under Section 111 of the Act. The Applicants denied the recovery of the gold Pansas from their possession. The magistrate held that the five Pansas of gold were recovered was foreign gold and that it had been smuggled into India and convicted the Applicants Under Section 135(b) of the Act. He sentenced Applicant Shiv Narain to two years' R.I. and to a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - and in default of payment of fine, ordered him to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months. He sentenced Applicant Ram Chandra to two years' R.I. Against their convictions and sentences, the Applicants preferred two appeals. The 1st Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Budaun, has dismissed both the appeals reducing their sentences from two years to one year's R.I. Hence these two revisions.

(3.) THE specific prevision applicable to seizures like the present ones is Section 110. The relevant portion of this section is as follows: