DILIP KUMAR PYNE Vs. S N DAS GUPTA ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS FOR PREVENTIVE GENERAL CUSTOMS HOUSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revisional application is directed against an order dated 18-10-1979 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Howrah in Case No. 1807-C of 1972 rejecting the petition dated 6-11-1978 filed on behalf of the accused praying for his discharge.

(2.) On 3-10-1972 the complainant opposite party No. 1 Assistant Collector of Customs (Preventive) filed a petition of complaint against the petitioner before the learned Magistrate on the allegation that the petitioner had committed offences under Section 135 of the Customs Act and under Section 85 of the Gold Control Act read with Sections 31 and 55 of the said Act. The Prosecution case is that on 27-9-1970 some Custom Officers searched the jewellery shop under the name and style of "S.B. Pyne" and Co. of the petitioner and his partner at 342, Netaji Subhas Road, Howrah and recovered four cut pieces of gold weighing 17 tollas and 8.5 annas one of which bore foreign markings indicating that it was smuggled and thereby the petitioner has committed an offence punishable under Section 135 of the Customs Act and that on the said date the petitioner was in possession, custody and control of primary gold in contravention of the provisions of Section 31 and 55 of the Gold Control Act and as no satisfactory account was given of such possession, the petitioner committed an offence punishable under Section 85 of the Gold Control Act.

(3.) The learned Magistrate took cognisance of the alleged offence on the said complaint and issued process against the petitioner. Thereafter the Prosecution examined twelve witnesses to prove its case. Before the learned Magistrate considered the question of framing charge the petitioner filed three separate petitions before him praying for discharge on the grounds that search conducted in the aforesaid shop was illegal for want of proper authorisation under Section 58(2) of the Gold Control Act, that proper sanction was not obtained under Section 97(1) of the said Act to file the petition of complaint against the petitioner and that the essential ingredients of the alleged offence under Section 85 of the Gold Control Act have not been made out. The learned Magistrate by his impugned order dated 18-10-1979 rejected the aforesaid three petitions.