UNION OF INDIA Vs. S H MUMTAZUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against a Judgment and order of acquittal passed by Sri Pratihar, Metropolitan Magistrate Fourth Court. Calcutta in Case No. C/2125 of 1977.

(2.) What happened in that case was that one Mirajuddin (accused-respondent No. 3) and his son Ferozuddin (accused-respondent No. 4) were found sitting within their shop at 4, Radhabazar Street Calcutta on 7-1-74. The place was visited by Sri Debabrata Ghosh, Inspector of Customs and Central Excise being assisted by Sri Bimal Kumar Banerjee (P.W. 4), Inspector of Customs and Central Excise. P.W. 6 Sri D. N. Ghose, another Inspector of Customs and P.W. 7 Sri M. R. Roy, still another Inspector were all there at that time and place to witness the search. In the presence of all these persons a cardboard box containing 88 pieces of foreign-made wrist-watches were found out at that place and on that very date accused Mirajuddin gave a written statement wherein he stated in clear terms that he had no conscious knowledge of the contents of that cardboard box, that the box was kept there by a third person whom he did not know and that that third person had suddenly entered into the shop and seeing the police personnel had left the shop abruptly after keeping that cardboard box over there in front of his table. The learned trial court believed this defence case adumbrated in Ext. 7 (written statement given by Mirajuddin) by characterising the same as "probable and reasonable".

(3.) The trial court also interpreted S. 105 of the Customs Act in favour of the accused persons by saying explicitly that the letter of authorisation (Ext. 4) ought not to have been issued by the assistant Collector of Customs, Sri Mukhopadhaya inasmuch as he had no "reasons to believe" for issuing such authentication. The trial court observed so because Sri Mukhopadhya was never examined by the prosecution. Also the trial court found that there was no suitable material on the record to justify Sri Mukhopadhaya to form a reasonable belief in respect of the intended search. The trial court also found that there was no material whatsoever on the record to prove that those 88 pieces of watches were of foreign origin. Upon the grounds aforesaid, the trial court acquitted Mirajuddin and his son. The other respondents are S. H. Mumtazuddin, a firm having its office at the self-same premises viz., 4, Radhabazar Street, and M/s. Angora Watches, another company having its shop over there. Mumtazuddin has figured as accused-respondent No. 1 and M/s. Angora Watches as accused-respondent No. 2.