SHIPAD BHIKU NAVGEKAR Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners 1 and 2 were accused 1 and 2 respectively in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Belgaum Cantonment, in C.C.No. 747 of 1967. In the course of this judgment they will be referred to as A1- and A-2. They have both been convicted for offences under S.135(b) (2) of the Customs Act and under Rule 126P(2)(ii) of the Defence of India (Amendment) Rules 1963 hereinafter referred to as Rules. The first accused habe been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.250, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month on each count. A-2 has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two months on each count. Substantive sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case is that on 20-5-1968 at about 10-30 A.M., PW.1, Sri Kami, Inspector of Central Excise, was checking Poona-Vasco Express train in Belgaum Railway Station. As the conduct of A-1 and A-2 aroused suspicion, he detained them and informed PW.2, Superintendent, Central Excise. PW.2, in the presence of panch witnesses searched these accused persons. In the hip pockets of the half pant which the first accused was wearing, he found 5 pellets of gold bearing foreign marking. In the rexine bag of A-2, there were two pockets each containing 10 pellets of gold weighing in tolas each and bearing foreign marking. These gold pellets were seized under the panchanama Ex.P-2. Thereafter PW.2 recorded the statement of A-l which has been marked as Ex.P-3. He also recorded the statement of A-2 which has been marked as Ex.P-5. After completing investigation and getting the necessary sanction and consent, a complaint was filed against the accused.

(3.) It is contended by Sri P.P.Muthanna, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the statements of A-1, A-2 and Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-5, are not voluntary. It is pointed out that both these accused when they were produced before the Magistrate complained that they had been beaten by the Customs Authorities. The learned Magistrate sent these accused for examination to the Civil Surgeon and the Civil Surgeon found that A-2 had some abrasions. It is therefore argued that the said statements, made by accused are not voluntary statements and are inadmissible as per S.24 of the Evidence Act.