PARAMJEET SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is hereby assailing the correctness, legality and propriety of the order which has been passed by the Special Court, Indore, in the matter of criminal case No. 4565/82 wherein the petitioner has been convicted for an offence punishable under the provisions of section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as Act, for convenience) and has been sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/ -, in default, S.I. for one month. The prosecution case in brief is that on 2.2.80 officers of Central Excise and Customs department, head -quarters at Indore, raided the shop of the petitioner. (The order of conviction and sentence has been passed in the matter of prosecution which was connected with the petitioner's father's wrist watch shop which was raided by the officers of the Central Excise and Customs department). The petitioner's father was running a shop in the style of M/s Singh Watch Co. 5, Gopal Mandir Chowk, Ujjain. In the raid they seized 47 wrist watches, 16 wrist watch's movements and one time piece manufactured in foreign countries. Those articles were worth Rs. 6,775 and they were the notified articles under the provisions of chapter 1(1) of the Act. When the petitioner was unable to produce the bitt and vouchers for the said goods, the officers of the raiding party decided to prosecute him. The complaint was lodged in the said Court after obtaining the sanction from the sanctioning authority. The evidence was recorded by the said Court and after accepting the evidence on record the learned trial Court held that the petitioner had committed the offence punishable under section 135 of the Customs Act and therefore the order of conviction and sentence was passed against the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner filed an appeal against it in the Sessions Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while deciding the Criminal appeal No. 32/92, confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner and being aggrieved by that the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. Shri Gangrade, counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court had committed the error of accepting the prosecution case holding the petitioner guilty and having the possession of those notified articles when the said shop was belonging to the father of the petitioner and was in possession of the father of the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner was temporarily present in the said shop at that time and therefore was not in possession of those notified articles. He submitted that keeping in view that aspect of the matter the trial Court should have acquitted him and atleast the said order should have been set -aside by the appellate Court while deciding the said appeal. He prayed that this Court be pleased to set -aside the order of the trial Court which has been confirmed by the appellate Court by allowing this revision petition. Shri B.G. Neema counsel appearing for the respondent justified the impugned order by submitting that the said order is correct, proper and legal.

(3.) THUS the revision petition stands dismissed.