UNION OF INDIA Vs. MADAN DEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This appeal by the Union of India is directed against the order of acquittal made by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court, Calcutta, in a proceeding initiated under S.135 of the Customs Act, 1962 and S.85 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.

(2.) Shortly stated the facts are that acting on an information, the Customs Officers raided the shop under the occupation and control of the opposite party No. 1, Madan Dey at 36, Nalini Seth Road, Calcutta on 3 1/07/1976. The search resulted in the recovery of gold items from inside the wooden desk in the said shop and Indian Currency amounting to Rs.3,800/and some incriminating documents from inside the iron safe. The gold items so recovered from the shop were seized on the reasonable belief that those were of smuggled origin and are liable to be confiscated under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Gold Control Act, 1968, since the opposite party No. 2, Mohan Dey, who was person in charge of the shop, at that time could not produce any documentary evidence in support of lawful acquisition and, possession of the seized gold items. Both the opposite parties are stated to have made voluntary statements before the Customs Officers. In his voluntary statement, Madan Dey, opposite party No. 1, admitted to have committed the offence. However, the opposite party No. 1 took the plea at the time of trial that he was not present at the shop when the seizure was made and he knew nothing about the gold. As regards the alleged voluntary statement, he denied having made any such statement and that his signature on the alleged statement was extorted by threat and coercion by the Customs officials.

(3.) The defence of the opposite party No. 2 was that he was not the owner of the shop and that he knew nothing about the recovery of the gold and the voluntary statement as alleged to have been made by him was obtained from him by the Customs officers by threat and coercion.