UNION OF INDIA Vs. OGHADMAL HIRALAL JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a case where the Customs Authorities are impugning an order of acquittal dated 6th March 2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, acquitting respondent no.1 of offence punishable under Section 135 (1) (A) and (B) read with Section 135 (1) (i) of the Customs Act, 1962 (the said Act).

(2.) Prosecution's case is, on 8th January 1991, on receipt of specific information, the premises of respondent no.1 situated at Pandurang Bhavan, M.G. Acharya Marg, Chembur, Mumbai - 400 071 (the said premises) was raided. Alongwith respondent no.1, there was one more person, Vinodkumar Bafna, who was found holding a plastic bag in his hand. The personal search of respondent no.1 resulted in the recovery of five gold bars of 10 tolas each and the search of the plastic bag carried by Vinodkumar Bafna, contained Indian currency of Rs.2,75,000/-. It is prosecution's case that on interrogation, respondent no.1 admitted that he had just purchased those five gold bars from Vinodkumar Bafna and handed over Rs.2,00,000/- cash to Vinodkumar Bafna. It is also prosecution's case that Vinodkumar Bafna also admitted the same. The five gold bars were weighing 583 gms. with a market value of Rs.2,08,714/-. It is stated that those gold bars were seized in the reasonable belief that the same were smuggled into India and hence, liable to confiscation under the provisions of the said Act. The Indian currency amounting to Rs.2,75,000/-, that was recovered from Vinodkumar Bafna, was also confiscated under Section 121 of the said Act as the same was believed to be sale proceeds of smuggled gold bars. Therefore, it is prosecution's case that respondent no.1 had purchased the five imported gold bars from Vinodkumar Bafna and Vinodkumar Bafna was carrying the sale proceeds of smuggled gold.

(3.) Statements of respondent no.1 and Vinodkumar Bafna under Section 108 of the said Act were recorded. In the statements, it is recorded that respondent no.1 admitted that he was a money lender by profession and as his daughter's marriage was fixed and he was in need of primary gold for making gold ornaments and also offer the same in marriage of his daughter. It is also recorded that respondent no.1 stated that Vinodkumar Bafna was known to him and Vinodkumar Bafna had offered to sell gold bars for Rs.40,000/- each and accordingly, he paid Rs.2,00,000/- to the said Vinodkumar Bafna, who in turn gave five foreign marked gold bars and the transaction was completed on the same day. Vinodkumar Bafna in his statement recorded under Section 108 of the said Act has confirmed what respondent no.1 in this appeal has stated.