UNION OF INDIA Vs. NARENDRA RATANCHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the outset, I have to note that on 6th January 2020, when the matter was called out, respondents were not represented and therefore, this Court requested Mr. Shanay Shah, an Advocate practicing in this Court, to be the Amicus Curiae. Mr. Shah agreed and the contribution of Mr. Shah, I have to note, has been immense. Today respondent no.1 was represented by Mr. Shastri.

(2.) This is an appeal impugning an order of acquittal passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, on 29th October 2001 acquitting respondent no.1 of offence punishable under Section 135 (1) (b) read with Section 135 (1) (i) of the Customs Act, 1962 and under Section 8 (1) of Gold Control Act punishable under Section 85 (1) (ii) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.

(3.) The prosecution's case in brief is that on 25th March 1985, the Officers of Gold Control Wing of appellant received specific information regarding some persons carrying foreign marked gold bars and who were to deliver it near a pan beedi shop at Abhinandan Market, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai. The Officers of appellant alongwith the informant, reached the spot and kept a watch. When respondent no.1 reached the spot, as per the information received by the Officers, the Officers apprehended respondent no.1 as he could not give satisfactory answers to the questions put to him by the said Officers. Accordingly, the Officers of appellant searched respondent no.1 and found some hard substance in his right hand side pocket of his trouser. On further persistent enquiry from the said Officers, respondent no.1 admitted that he was carrying 5 foreign marked gold bars of 10 tolas each. As the said place was an open market place and the Officers felt it was not safe for detailed search as well as seizure panchnama of respondent no.1, the said Officers took him to the Office of the Gold Control and produced him before the Superintendent of Customs - Madhukar Krishnarao Pansare (PW-1). Thereafter, panchas were called and search was made of the person of respondent no.1. Appellant found 5 foreign marked gold bars of 10 tolas each, totally weighing 582.500 gms. and the local market value at that time was Rs.1,86,400/-. It seems simultaneously an authorised valuer was also called for testing the purity of the gold bars and a certificate was obtained. Thereafter, the said gold bars were seized under the reasonable belief that the same were smuggled and liable for confiscation under the provisions of the Customs Act as well as Gold Control Act.