SHYAMLAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Rajasthan, Jaipur under his judgment dated 16th July 1984 convicted the accused petitioner u/s. 135(B) of the Costumes Act, 1962 (for short the Act) and sentenced him to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2, 000/- or in default of payment of fine to further suffer six months R.I. The learned Magistrate also ordered that so far as the confiscated foreign wrist watches numbering 2545 are concerned, the department has already made an order in respect of them. The accused petitioner filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence and the learned AddI. Sessions Judge, Jaipur city, Jaipurumfer his judgment dated 17th January 1989 partly allowed the appeal. He maintained the conviction of the accused petitioner u/s. 135 (B) of the Customs Act but reduced the sentence to one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- or in default of payment of fine to further suffer six months Rigbous Imprisonment. I consider it proper to give the facts of the case which are these:

(2.) On 10th April 1972, in persuance, of an information that foreign goods are being carried in a truck which is coming from Bombay a party of customs and Central Excise Officers, Jaipur conducted Nakabandi on Ajmer, Jaipur and Malpura Jaipur routes. At about 23.00 hours on Ajmer Jaipur route truck DLL 8022 was noticed coming from Ajmer side. On a signal being given, the truck was stopped and on inquiry four persons were found in the truck. Beside the accused petitioner who was the registered owner and is also said to be in possession of the contraband wrist watches, Pooran Chand and Mohan Lal were the drivers and one Had was the khalasi. At that time Pooran Chand, the first driver of the truck was driving the vehicle and the other driver was also sitting on a seat behind him and the petitioner was sitting by the side of the driver and is said to have disclosed himself as the owner of the truck in question. Khalasi was sitting on the top of the truck. It was given out by the driver that he was bringing the truck from Bombay and was proceeding to Delhi. Beside other goods which were covered by the several documents three packages were found which were not so covered and contraband or smuggled goods. The truck was brought to the office of Assistant Collector, Customs and Central Excise situated at C-60, Sarojini Marg, Jaipur for examination. It was kept in the custody of the employees of Customs department on 11th April 1972. At about 8.00 a.m. in the presence of the independent witnesses namely Sudarshan Kumar, Khem Chand and Shri Jai Gopal, 34 packages of cloth and 68 cables of copper as detailed in challan No. 5221-5222 dated 8th April 1972 as given to M/s. Great India Roadways Bombay were unloaded from the said truck. On examination the aforesaid packages, nothing incaminating was found. . But on further examination of the truck, three more packages wrapped in Ganni bags on which there were marking (1) R.S. Motors Ltd. G.B. 850, (2) R.S. Motors Ltd., GZBD 1200, (3) R.S. Motors Ltd. GZBD 500 were found. On opening the three gunny bags, they were found containing 2545 wrist watches worth Rs. 2,88,945/-. These three gunny bags were notfound entered in the above numbered goods challan dated 8th April 1972. The registration certificate of the vehicle showed that the accused petitioner was the registered owner of the vehicle. The accused-petitioner is also said to have been the owner in possession of the said wrist watches numbering 2545. On demand by the customs officers, the accused petitioner could not show any lawful purchase/possession in respect of the said number of wrist watches. The said goods, therefore, were seized u/s. 110 of the Customs Act, on a reasonable belief that the same were illicitly imported to India u/s. 3(1) and 3(2) of the Import and (Control) Act, 1947 and Import Control Order, 1955 (as amended).

(3.) An inquiry u/s.108 of the Customs Act was initiated in connection with the smuggling of the goods and the accused petitioner is said to have made a statement on 11th April 1972, which statement was recorded u/s. 108 of the Act, and in his statement the accused petitioner had admitted that the said wrist watches were handed over by his uncle Raj Kumar to him to carry them to Delhi and deliver them at his residence. He further admitted that he and his uncle reside in the same house at Delhi and Raj kumar Gupta has a firm named as Panchasheel Traders Watch Dealer and Commission Agent situated at 97, New Lajpat Rai Marg, Delhi and deals in watches. The accused-petitioner is also said to have admitted in his statement, that the said 2545 wrist watches were smuggled goods and his uncle had told him not to make the goods receipt (bilty). The accused-petitioner, therefore, acting upon the advise of his uncle, was carrying the wrist watches to Delhi in the truck. It was only after the sanction and authorisation for prosecution that the afore said complaint was filed. The accused petitioner was tried and after the prosecution evidence the accused was examined u/s. 313, Cr.P.C. to explain the circumstances appearing him in the evidence. A look at statement u/s. 313, Cr.P.C. will show that the accused has denied to be the owner of the truck or taking the above numbered wrist watches in the truck or that the same were smuggled. He stated that his signatures were obtained on the various papers but the same were not prepared in his presence. But it may be said that the petitioner cannot be said to have disputed his ownership of the truck. In the answer to the said question as to what he has to state, the petitioner stated that his vehicle was attached with Great India Roadways, Bombay.