STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. AMALIO SIMOES KHANDWALLA APTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is preferred against acquittal of the accused by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Mag-istrate, 3rd Court, Esplance, Bombay in Case No.27/CW/88 for the offences punish-able under sections 135(l)(a)(i) and section 135(l)(bXi) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with section 13(2) and section 18(1) read with section 67 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (in short 'FERA Act').

(2.) The prosecution's case in brief is that as per information received by the Intelli-gence Unit of Bombay Customs Preventive Collectorate, accused/respondent Amalio Simoc had arrived at Bombay on 14.2.1987 with gold bards of foreign origin and had sold it and that he was residing in the Zeni house, 2nd Marine Street, Dhobi Talao, Bombay. In the light of said information, the Customs Officers alongwith two independent witnesses went to the said Zeni house, when the accused was coming out of the house. Initially on inquiry, the accused de-nied that he had brought any gold of for-eign origin or had valuable foreign articles, in respect of which no Custom duty was paid. Being not satisfied with his reply, the custom officers showed him search warrant and thereafter searched the premises in the presence of the two independent panch wit-nesses and the accused. During the search, 172 notes each of 500 UAE Dirhams and 31 notes each of 500 Quatar Riyals along with Indian Currency of Rs. 31,400/- were found. The total value of foreign and Indian cur-rency was Rs. 3,61,275/-. The said currency was seized. The accused confessed that the said foreign and Indian currencies belonged to him and he had received the same as sale praeds of the gold bars of foreign origin, smuggled by him during his last visit to Bombay from Dubai as a member of the crew of M.V. Orient Express. He also admitted that he evaded the custom duty. The ac-cused had no licence or permit from Reserve Bank of India for import of gold or to hold foreign currency. His statement under sec-tion 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 was re-corded by the customs officers, wherein he admitted above fact. Thus, he has violated the provisions of Customs Act as well as the provisions of sections 13(2) and 18(d) (A) of the FERA Act. On the basis of these fact, after obtaining necessary sanction, com-plaint was filed and the charges were framed against the accused.

(3.) He pleaded not guilty. According to accused he was residing at Santacruz and not at Zeni house. That room in Zeni house was allotted to Santano Fernandes, who was occupying the same. He was proceeding to Santacruz when he was intercepted by cus-toms officers and he has been falsely impli-cated in the case.