HOTCHAND LILARAM MIRPURI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule is directed against an order of conviction of the petitioner under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. He was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs, 200/ -, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six weeks. At the trial there was a further, charge against him under Section 167 (81) of the Sea Customs Act, but he was acquitted of the same.

(2.) THE allegations, on which the two charges mentioned above were founded, were as follows:

(3.) THE defence of the petitioner was that he had no guilty intention of importing goods into India and he was not aware of the permissible limits.of the baggage allowance. The learned Magistrate held that importation of goods and jewellery into India from foreign country without permission of the Reserve Bank of India was restricted and the petitioner could not produce any import trade control license or the permit from the Reserve Bank of India. He had indeed not even disputed that he had the goods with him and that it was in contravention of the restriction imposed as regards the entry of these goods under the Import trade Control Order.