STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. MADHAV HARI DAMLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals are filed by the State of Maharashtra against the common respondents who are four in number and at the relevant time were working as Inspector and Sub-Inspectors of Central Excise and Customs. All these four respondents were facing two trial in respect of the same incident dated 18/4/1969 in Case No.239/CW/1982 and Case No. 240/CW/1982 filed against the respondents by the Custom department. Both these cases were disposed of by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Esplande, Bombay by two separate judgments on the same date i.e. 2nd December 1983. In both these cases the respondents were acquitted and, therefore, the State has preferred the present appeals. In case No. 239/CW/1982 these respondents were four out of total 16 original accused persons and were arraigned as Accused Nos. 12 to 15 facing charges under Section 120-B of IPC and Sections 135(a) (i) and 135(b) (1) of the Customs Act and Section 5 of the Import and Exports (Control) Act read with Section 109 of IPC that is for conspiracy and for contravening the provisions of Customs Act and Import and Exports (Control) Act in respect of smuggling of synthetic fabrics of foreign origin valued at Rs.7 lacs and for abetment of these offences. In Case No. 240/CW/1982 these respondents were four out of six total number of accused and were arraigned as accused Nos. 1 to 4 facing charges under Section 120-B of IPC and Section 136 of the Customs Act i.e. for conspiracy and for conniving at smuggling of synthetic fabrics of foreign origin valued at Rs.7 lacs. Since both the cases arose in respect of the same incident dated 18/4/1969 and arise from the same set of facts, both these appeals are being disposed of by this common Judgment.

(2.) THE prosecution case briefly stated is as follows:

(3.) ABOUT a week thereafter Superintendent Varma of Central Excise and Customs, who was accused No.6 called Damle and Pendharkar in his chamber and he scolded them for not taking him into confidence for accepting the aforesaid amount. Damle and Pendharkar agreed to shell out the amounts from the shares of the above five persons and accordingly they paid a sum of Rs. 21,000/- to Superintendent Varma.