STATE COLLECTOR CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. PAPAS KUMAR SHOME

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the court of appeal reversing the order of conviction passed against the respondent, who stood charged under Section 135(b) of the Customs Act (the 'Act', for short) for dealing with a 'Datsun' car of foreign make and being in possession thereof without any authority knowing it to be liable to confiscation under S.111 of the Act, finding him guilty of the charge and convicting him thereunder and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- and in default of payment thereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months, are under challenge in this appeal.

(2.) The respondent, it was alleged, along with another co-accused person, namely, Sanjeev Ghose, was dealing with smuggled cars of foreign make without authority and upon receiving information about this, the Superintendent of Central Excise (P.W.4), being accompanied by the Inspector of Central Excise (P.W.1), then stationed at Cuttack, visited Baripada on November 16, 1972 and seized, as per Ext.1, from the premises of Sital Prasad Ghose (P.W.2), brother-in law of the respondent, a Datsun car of foreign make (M.O.I.) bearing registration plate No. DLK 7813 which, in the course of enquiry, was found to be a number assigned to a Buick car of foreign make, which had been left by the driver of the respondent as the engine got trouble on its way from Bangalore to Calcutta and a written statement (Ext. 2) had been made by P.W.2 who had handed it over to P.Ws.1 and 4 stating that the driver of the respondent had left M.O.I, with him, P.W.2 had approached the respondent in Calcutta to bring back the vehicle and the latter had assured that he would take steps for it. The respondent had made a confessional statement (Ext.4) before P.W.3 on November 27, 1972 while P.W.3 was the Inspector of Customs and Central Excise, Preventive and Intelligence Branch, Customs House, Calcutta, admitting to be in possession of the car in question. In the course of enquiry, Sanjeev Ghose, the absconding co-accused person, appeared before P.W.4 on November 2, 1972 and submitted an application claiming the seized car as having been purchased by him from Devraj of Delhi and he produced a registration certificate (Ext.3) which, on varification was found to be in respect of a motor cycle and the registration book was missing. P.W.5 took steps for sanction to prosecute both the respondent and the co-accused Sanjeev Ghose, obtained the order of sanction (Ext.6) from the Collector of Customs and made a petition of complaint. The respondent's case was that lie had nothing to do with the car in question and that he had given the statement (Ext.4) under threat by the Customs authorities.

(3.) To bring home the charge against the respondent, the prosecution had examined five witnesses. As already indicated, P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 were officers of the Central Excise and-Customs. P.W.2, the brother-in-law of the respondent in whose premises the car had been left, had testified about it. He had given two written statements (Exts.2 and 7/1) to the Customs authorities. P.W.5, an Advocate at Baripada, had written out Ext.7/1. The respondent had not examined any witness in his defence.