GOPAL GOVIND CHOGALE Vs. ASSISTANTCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the basis of credible information that a mechanised Indian Fishing Trawler loaded with contraband goods had been abandoned at Kedari Bender, Bbaratkhol, Taluka Shriwardhan in Raigad District, the Inspector of Customs rushed to the spot along with other members of his staff and panchas. This event occurred on 24th December, 1982. The information proved to be correct. The members of the raiding party noticed a trawler loaded with packages of goods of foreign origin. It was stuck up in the rock which made it difficult to be removed. Therefore, 39 packages which were found therein were brought to Shriwardhan Jetty in another vessel and it is at Shriwardhan Port that a detailed panchanama of contraband goods was made. It transpired that those bundles contained 39 packages of textiles of foreign origin were worth Rs. 6,76,020/-. The result was that the Customs Officials did find the contraband articles but not the persons concerned with the same. A search was therefore, effected in the pearby area. The party found additional textiles with some electronic goods worth about Rs. 27,000.00 and Rs. 45,000.00 respectively which thus obviously were abandoned. A further lot of contraband goods worth Rs. 13,500.00 was found on 25th of December, 1982.

(2.) On the basis of this material the Customs Officials commenced the investigation and it transpired that the abandoned vessel was "Tara" and it was from District Balsad in the State of Gujarat. The investigation further revealed that one person who was placed in the dock as original accused No.2. a resident of Karambeli in Balsad District was the Tandel of that vessel. His vessel came to be searched on the 25th of January, 1983 and some documents were found in the vessel as also in the house search. His statement then came to be recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, wherein he is alleged to have admitted his guilt and active participation vis-avis the contraband goods. According to him, he had brought the contraband goods from Dubai. He tried to involve one other person who has been placed as accused No. 1 and who is the petitioner herein. According to him, the petitioner had contracted him and lured him under a fanciful monetary consideration to transport the contraband goods from Safjah to Shriwardhan. The goods were loaded in the vessel by the other person and thus both the accused left Sarjah on 14th of December 1982. He further clarified that when he came to Bharatkhol Bunder the original accused No. 1 got down and went to his house. Accused No. 1 admits that he abandoned these goods and vessel on realising the potential danger of the situation as the Coustoms Officials had information about the same.

(3.) On the basis of this statement which purported to implicate accused No. 1, a search was effected and accused No. 1 came to be arrested. His house search was affected under various Panchanamas. His statement also came to be recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, though it must be observed at this juncture itself that it is out and out as exculpatory statement as accused No. 1, positively asserted that he has no concern with the goods or vessel or with accused No. 2 in any manner.