STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. GEETA DEEPAK RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this appeal, the appellant has impugned the Judgment and Order dated 5-7-1983 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Bombay in Criminal Case No.73 and 74/cw of 82, acquitting the respondents for offences punishable under section 135 (1) (a) (ii) of the Customs Act and section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. It may be mentioned that there were two other accused persons namely Deepak Raj and Maqbuli Bin Ibrahim Hasanali but, as the warrants against them could not be executed, their cases were kept on dormant file.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that on 21-7-1980, PW 1 Kuria Kose Philips Perukored, Preventive Officer of the Bombay Customs, was posted as an Intelligence Officer at Bombay International Airport. That day, he was in the arrival section. He noticed Maqbuli Hasanali who came by Air India flight from Bangkok. He suspected him and enquired from him whether he was carrying any restricted or prohibited articles. Maqbuli replied in the negative. He said that there were personal effects of Rs. 500/ -. However, his personal search revealed that he was carrying 1000 integrated circuits tied in packets around his legs inside the socks, the value of which was Rs. 30,000/ -. THEre were no valid documents for their import. It was found that the two respondents had come to receive Maqbuli, and the authorities suspected that they were concerned with this illegal import. After seizure of the integrated circuits from Maqbuli, under a panchnama, the Customs Officers went to the house of the respondent Rajendrakumar Gulati located in Blossom Housing Society, Marol, Andheri. THE respondent Rajendra Kumar Gulati was there. His car was also near building and from the same, some documents, two suit cases and a hand bag were recovered. the said articles were taken to the flat of respondent Rajendrakumar Gulati and it was found that they contained foreign dutiable goods, like garments, cosmetics and textiles valued at Rs. 13,898/ -. THEy were seized under a panchanama. Respondent Rajendra Kumar Gulati was asked about the goods and he replied that respondent Gita Raj had asked him to keep the suit cases and hand bag from which they (goods) were recovered, for sometime in his car and had promised to take them during the course of the day. This statement of Rajendra Gulati is recorded in the panchanama. THE statements of the two respondents and Maqbuli were recorded under section 108 of Customs Act.

(3.) AFTER recording the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the statement of the respondents under section 313 of the Cr. P. C. the trial Court passed the impugned Judgment, which has been taken offence to by the State of Maharashtra and has led to the filing of the present appeal.