ARTHUR ALMEIDA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the appellants have been convicted of an offence under Section 5 of the Imports & Exports (Control) Act and of another offence under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 5 of Imports & Exports (Control) Act. The prosecution case is that on the 7th September 1955, the two appellants Arthur Almeida, who is a cabin boy on board s.s. Garbeta and Sgt. R. S. Hottinger were found coming out of the ship. Hottinger was ahead and Almeida was following him at a short distance. Almeida it is said was carrying a suitcase. Three Customs Sepoys who were on duty at the Garden Reach Coal Jetty where the ship was berthed asked Almeida about the contents of the suitcase. He gave no reply but Hottinger said that the suitcase contained two bottles of wine. The Sepoys took the suitcase into custody, and, after search witness had been secured, it was opened, and on search it was found to contain among other things one bottle George IV Whisky, one bottle of Tolley's brandy and six packets of stones which, it is said, are synthetic stones. The prosecution case is that the import of synthetic stones or the wine and the whisky into India can only be made under a licence granted by the Central Government, but these articles were brought into India by the two appellants without any such licence and that they were doing this in pursuance of a previous conspiracy between themselves and also one Joakim Anthony Almeida, Chief Steward of s.s. Garbeta .

(2.) Both the accused pleaded not guilty. Almeida said he knew nothing about the contents of the suitcase while Hottinger's defence was that he went to the ship on duty and did not know anything about the contents of the suitcase.

(3.) The learned Magistrate appears to have believed the witnesses about the search and that the prosecution had proved that Almeida was carrying a suitcase which contained bottles of wine and synthetic stones and that when asked about the contents Almeida kept quiet and Hottinger gave reply that the suitcase contained two bottles of wine and also that Almeida claimed the bottles. Apparently in this view he reached a finding which is recorded in these words.