S G RAJADHYAKSHYA Vs. LEELA DAULATRAM UTTAMCHANDANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has come in appeal against the order of acquittal passed in favour of the original accused of the offence under Sections 135 (1) (a) (ii) and 135 (1) (b) (ii) of the Customs Act and under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act passed by the Additional Sessions judge, Greater Bombay, in Criminal Appeal No. 399 of 1981.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to this appeal are as under. The accused was tried and convicted of the offence under Sections 135 (1) (a) (ii) and 135 (1) (b) (ii) of the Customs Act and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act and she was sentenced to suffer imprisonment till rising of Court and fine of Rs. 40,000/- on each of the first two counts and she was also sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act. Being aggrieved by the said order of conviction the accused preferred an appeal to the Court of Sessions at Greater bombay and the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused allowing the appeal.

(3.) THE prosecution case was that the accused had arrived at Bombay Air-port from Manila by air France flight on the night between 11-1-1981 and 12-1-1981, that on arrival she presented her baggage at the customs counter and baggage consisted of two suit-cases and one wheeler bag, that on examination of the baggage, the Customs Officer found some dutiable and restricted goods in the baggage, that the officer asked the accused to make a declaration about the baggage as they suspected her, that the accused however told that she has nothing to declare except the personal effects in her baggage and jewellery on her person, that the Customs Officer in the meanwhile felt that the accused had kept a black handbag on the floor surreptitiously and, therefore, she was asked to declare the contents of that handbag and she is alleged to have stated that there was nothing to declare in the same, that the cursory examination of the handbag by the officer disclosed that there were two Rado wrist watches at the bottom under other items, wrapped in tissue papers and these watches were not declared by the accused, that the officers, therefore, called the panches and carried out the examination of the entire baggage, that the accused was once again asked to make a fresh declaration in the presence of panaches but she again stated that she had nothing to declare apart from her personal effects in the baggage and jewellery which was on her person, that thereafter the black handbag was examined further and on emptying the contents of the handbag it was noticed that its base was unusually uneven and, therefore, the officers suspected concealment, that the accused was again asked whether there was anything concealed under the said base of the bag but she denied to have concealed anything, that as the customs officers were not satisfied with her reply, they got opened the base of the hand bag through one of the officers and in between the two pieces of cardboard which were glued together at the base, 8 pieces of diamond, gold and platinum and pearl were found concealed, that the jewellery and other dutiable goods recovered from the baggage, the value of the jewellery and other dutiable goods were estimated at Rs. 79,815/- market value. The Customs officers prepared a panchanama of the search and thereafter a notice was served under Section 108 of the Customs Act on the accused and statement of the accused was recorded. After obtaining necessary sanction to prosecute the accused, the complaint was filed before the Trial court and on the strength of evidence led before the Trial Court the accused was convicted and sentenced as stated earlier. Being aggrieved by the said order of conviction, the accused preferred as appeal to the Court of Sessions and the Court of Sessions found the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the accused and keeping with said finding acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the said order of acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal.