JAGAR NAMASIVAYEH ARJUNAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two petitions have been filed by the same petitioner and arise in respect of the same set of facts but the only difference is that by Criminal Writ Petition No. 1230 of 1991 the petitioner is seeking to quash the process issued by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate presiding in 32nd Court, Esplanade, Bombay in Case No. 74/cw/91 while in Criminal Writ Petition No. 343 of 1993 the petitioner is seeking quashing of show-cause notice issued under section 124 of Customs Act on 4-2-1991 bearing Reference No. CTU-INF-2/90/s/10-8/91 CTU. As both the petitions involve same set of facts, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE complaint filed by the Customs Authority against the petitioner briefly stated is as follows: the petitioner who is a Singapore National and having Singapore Passport had arrived in Bombay from Singapore on 8th August 1990 on his way to Cairo. He made a halt at Bombay and kept his goods, which he was carrying, in the customs warehouse at the Airport. On 14th August, 1990 on the basis of prior information the Customs Officers of Central Intelligence Unit kept a watch on petitioner at the Airport. He was supposed to go to Cairo. He had taken his goods which consisted of computer parts from the Customs warehouse and was supposed to board the plane for Cairo. However, after going through the formalities at the Airport he deliberately missed the flight for Cairo and was waiting for some person to collect the goods from him. He was apprehended by the Customs Officers and was found in possession of Air India ticket Bombay/bangkok/singapore. His wife had also arrived there. Both, the petitioner as well as his wife, were interrogated. Their statements were recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act in which they had admitted that the suitcases containing contraband were given to them by one Chiman of Singapore which were to be handed over to accused No. 1 by name Khetsi Hirji Shah @ Raju. As per their statements the goods were to be surreptitiously handed over to accused No. 1 and thereafter they were to take flight for Singapore and not for Cairo as represented by the petitioner at the time of arrival on 8th August 1990. After the enquiries and the investigation, the complaint dated 9th July 1991 was filed by the Customs Authorities in the Chief Metropolitan Magistrates Court. The learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrates 32nd Court Esplanade, Bombay issued process which is under challenge in Criminal Write Petition No. 1230 of 1991.

(3.) MS. Bhosale the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the contraband was not found in possession of the petitioner but was in fact in the custody of the Customs Authority and therefore, no offence either under section 135 of the Customs Act or section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act was committed by the petitioner and, therefore, the process issued by the trial Court is liable to be quashed.