STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. LAXMANSINGH JALAMSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by the State for enhancement of the sentence passed upon the accused by the learned Presidency Magistrate, 14th Court, Girgaum, Bombay. The accused was convicted by that learned Magistrate of an offence under section 135(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 2000, but was acquitted of the offence under Rule 126P(2)(ii) read with Rule 126-I sub-rule (10) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, with which also he had been charged.

(2.) The facts of the case are that, in consequence of information received by them, the police kept a watch outside a building named Bihari building somewhere at Cotton Green on the evening of the 1st March 1967, and they noticed the accused coming out of that building at about 7.15 p.m. with a cloth bag in his hand. On suspicion, the police stopped the accused and took him to the police station where he was searched in the presence of panchas, and it was found that in a cavity in the sole of the sandal which he had worn on the left foot there were 10 gold biscuits with foreign markings, and in the heel of the same sandal there was one more gold biscuit also with foreign markings. In a similar cavity in the sole of the sandal on his right foot, however, only some papers were found. All the 11 gold biscuits and the pair of sandals as well as the papers were taken charge of by the police under a panchanama which is Ex. K in the trial court proceedings. The accused's room on the ground floor of the same building was also searched, but nothing incriminating was found there, except that three other pairs of sandals with similar cavities in their soles were found in that room. On the 2nd of March 1967, the accused, along with the property seized, was handed over to the customs authorities. The accused was thereafter tried and was convicted and sentenced as stated above. From the acquittal of the accused in respect of the offence under the Defence of India Rules, the State preferred an appeal which was, however, summarily dismissed by my brother Bal on the 7th of September 1969. The State also filed the present revision application for enhancement of the sentence passed upon the accused for the offence under section 135(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, of which he was convicted by the trial court.

(3.) The accused has, at the hearing of this revision application, challenged his conviction itself as he is entitled to do under the law, and for that purpose Mr. Mehta has advanced three arguments before me. They are as follows :-