PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. CHANGANRAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tenali convicted the respondent for offences under section 135 (b) (ii) of the Customs Act and section 85 (ii) of the Gold Control Act and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months, under each of the two counts. The sentences, excepting the one in default, were directed to run concurrently. The first Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur in appeal confirmed the convictions and also the sentence of fine, but reduced the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone. The State has brought this revision case for enhancement of the sentence.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the respondent has exercised his right under section 439 (6), Criminal Procedure Code, and has endeavoured to show cause against his conviction. Consequently, I am now called upon to consider not only the sufficiency of the sentence but the correctness of the conviction as well.

(3.) Before I go into these aspects, it is convenient to briefly state the circumstances of the case. The charge against the respondent is that on 6th February, 1969 at about 11 A.M. a raid was made by the Customs officials on his residential premises. Though nothing was found in the actual residential premises, the official found two packets near "a Boppas tree in the open space of the compound of the respondent, which was surrounded by a compound wall. Since the earthen surface near the tree was covered with loose sand, bricks and deal-wood boxes, the searching officials got suspicious and dug out the place. There, they found the two packets, one containing 13 gold slabs marked M.Os. 1 to 13 and the other containing 10 slabs marked as M.Os. 14 to 23. The fold slabs bore mark. " Compagne Metaux Preceiux'' Ric and "Johnson Mathx London 99-0." Each slab weighed about ten tolas. P. W. i. the Superintendent of Central Excise, who led the search, questioned the respondent whether he had any permission from the Gold Administrator to import foreign gold and the respondent stated that he had no such documents. Thereupon, the gold was seized under Mahazar, Exhibit P-24. Then the prescribed procedure for seizing the gold was followed. P. W. 1, questioned the respondent regarding the possession of the gold in the presence of mediators and the statement he gave was recorded and the same was filed as Exhibit P-25. After the gold was discovered, one Ganeshlal Sopaji, arrived on the scene and stated that it was he who came to the house on 5th February, 1969, in the afternoon, dug the ground and put the packets containing the 23 gold ingots. He added that they were given to him by an individual at Bombay on and February, 1969. P. W. 1, sent the report to the Collector of Customs for adjudication who, after enquiry into the matter, passed an adjudication order, Exhibit P-27, confiscating the gold and imposing penalty of Rs. 10,000 against the respondent. Samples of slabs of the gold were sent to the mint for opinion and after testing the mint authorities expressed their opinion that the gold was pure in quality and was of foreign origin. Thereupon, the Collector, Central Excise sanctioned prosecution of the accused under both the charges. Exhibits P-30 and P-31, are the sanction orders.