BALIRAM PADMAKAR THAKUR Vs. CC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the course of their investigations into some smuggling activities the Custom House recorded the statement of Mohan Joma Koli who was found on board a vessel described only as a Karanja type vessel. Koli said that vessel had carried from Dubai 115 bags of contraband silver which it had transferred to another vessel at a point between Khanderi and Thai. Koli said that this was done at the instance of Baliram Thakur, the appellant. The officers located the other vessel and seized it. In three statements recorded on 13.7.1992, 15.7.1992 and 21.7.1992 Koli gave the details of the carriage of silver from Dubai and the transfer to the other vessel. He gave details of the sailing of the vessel etc. and he clearly and categorically named the appellant as a person whose instance carried the ingots. He also identified the photograph of the appellant. The officers also recorded the statement of Kisan Bama Koli who had been named by Mohan Koli as the person who asked him to guard the vessel which was anchored at Elephanta. Kisan Bama Koli stated that he had been asked by his neighbour and the appellant to do the job of transferring the silver and he refused but at the instance gave them services of a khalasa crew member to Mohan Koli. Thakur gave him Rs. 1,000/ - for his (Thakur's) vessels to be taken to Vashi. The order records that the officers were unable to locate the vessel.

(2.) THAKUR was a seaman with the Custom House. He had been absent from his duty and summons issued to him could not be served on him. Notices were issued proposing confiscation of the vessel and penalty on the persons concerned in the order impugned in the appeal the Collector imposed penalty under Section 112 of the Act of Rs. 50 lakhs on Baliram Thakur. Hence this appeal.

(3.) THE advocate for the appellant first raises the contention that statement of Mohan Koli is by itself insufficient to penalise the appellant. He cites in support Supreme Court judgement in Haricharan Kunni and Anr. v. State of Bihar AIR 1964 (2) ELT 344 and the Tribunal's decision in K.I. Pavunni v. CCE Cochin 1985 ECR 1757 (T). It is not possible to accept this contention. In Naresh J. Sukhwani v. UOI 1996 (62) ECR 366 (SC) the Supreme Court confirmed the imposition of penalty on Sukhawani under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act solely on the basis of statement of another person, who said he had been given the currency by Sukhawani. It has not been shown to us why this decision should not be applied to the facts of this case. This is a later decision than Haricharan Kurmi and Anr. v. State of Bihar. Any Tribunal decision contrary to this cannot be considered good law.