STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. ANIL BHAGCHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Application has been filed on behalf of the Customs Department for quashing the order of discharge of the Respondent-accused for the offences under Section 135 (1) (a) and 135 (1) (b) read with Section 135 (1) (i) of the Customs Act, and Section 5 of the Imports and exports (Control) Act, 1947, passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 32nd Court, Esplanade, Bombay, in case No. 150/cw of 1984 dated 31-10-1985.

(2.) A complaint was filed by the Assistant Collector of Customs before the learned Metropolitan magistrate against the Respondent-accused alleging that he has committed the offences mentioned above in respect of goods which he did not declare and which he had brought while coming to India. The case of the prosecution was that the Respondent arrived at Bombay international Air Port at Sahar, during the night intervening 14th-15th April 1984 by Air India flight. At the red channel in the Customs enclosure the Respondent declared goods on which duty was payable and his declaration was accepted. Duty was accordingly charged on the said goods. In the meantime, three packages and one roll of carpet were found lying in the baggage area. These were lying with the inscription "hemant Waingankar, Cricket Control Board, bombay". Hemant Waingankar was another passenger who had travelled by the same flight. The customs Officers located the said Hemant Waingankar in the baggage area itself and enquired with him about the aforesaid packages. He denied having any concern with the said packages and instead, stated that they belonged to the Respondent-accused. The Respondent was then questioned and it is alleged by the prosecution that at that time he claimed the packages. The contents of the packages were examined. They contained VCR, Type-writer, Cordless telephones, Glass show pieces and other articles valued at Rs. 51,510 C. I. F. at the local market rate. According to the prosecution, these goods were seized under a Panchanama in the reasonable belief that they were liable for confiscation under the Customs Act. That was followed by adjudication proceedings during which the Respondent offered to clear the goods on payment of duty. The market value of the goods was determined at Rs. 1,54,530/- in the adjudication proceedings. On the basis, therefore, that the contents of the packages were not declared with a view to evade payment of customs duty and the goods were liable for confiscation under the provisions of the Customs Act, sanction to prosecute the Respondent for offences punishable under Section 135 (1) (a) and 135 (1) (b) read with Section 135 (1) (i) of the customs Act, and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, was given by the collector of Customs, Bombay, and the complaint was filed in the lower Court.

(3.) IN support of the complaint, the prosecution examined V. N. Patil, Preventive Officer, and one C. V. Ephram, before the charge and closed its case. The Respondent appeared through his lawyer and was heard. After considering the evidence produced before him, the learned magistrate found that it was not disclosed by the evidence that there was any intention on the part of the Respondent to evade customs duty and import the goods and he was in no way concerned with the goods except that he had accompanied the cricket team as employee of the sponsors and the goods were in fact consigned to Hemant Waingankar, the Cricket Control board of India, and further that the contents of the packages were goods which were given as complimentary gifts to the members of the cricket team and thus no offence was offence was disclosed to have been committed by the Respondent, as alleged by the prosecution. Consequently, he passed the order discharging the Respondent.