STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. BUDHRAM
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)THE State has filed this appeal from the judgment of the Additional Sessions judge, Ganganagar dated 5th August, 1964 by which the conviction and sentence passed against the accused-respondent by the Magistrate First Class, Ganganagar under Section 167 (81) of the Sea Customs Act (No. 8 of 1878) were set aside.
(2.)THE prosecution case briefly was that Shri J. P. Tandon, Deputy Superintendent, customs, Sri Ganganagar received information on 14-9-1958 that the accused budhram was in possession of some dutiable and prohibited goods. He, therefore, obtained a search warrant from the First Class Magistrate, Ganganagar authorising shri Heerasingh, Inspector, Land Customs, to search the premises of the accused. In execution of the warrant, Shri Heerasingh searched the house of the accused situated in Sri Ganganagar the same night and recovered 11 bars of gold which contained foreign markings. Further investigation was made in the matter and eventually the Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs, New Delhi confiscated the gold bars under Section 167 (8) of the Act read with Section 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. Thereafter a complaint was filed by the Assistant Collector of Customs under Section 167 (81) of the Sea Customs Act no. 8 of 1878 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") before the Sub-divisional magistrate, Ganganagar on 11-8-1961.
(3.)THE case of the accused Budhram was that his brother Ramjas lived with him in the same house and the gold in question was recovered from the room occupied by Ramjas. It may be added that the accused is alleged to have made statements before Shri Heerasingh, Inspector, Customs, Ganganagar and Shri J. P. Tandon, deputy Superintendent, Customs, Sri Ganganagar on 15-9-1958, and those statements were also put in evidence in support of the prosecution case and they have been marked Ex. P. 1 and Ex. P. 2. In those statements the accused practically admitted the prosecution case that the gold was smuggled one and he had purchased the same from one Chirag Ali, a national of Pakistan. The learned magistrate convicted the accused under Section 167 (81) of the Act and sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default of payment of fine six months' further rigorous imprisonment. The learned Magistrate relied on the evidence produced before him which was mainly about the recovery of gold and did not attach any importance to the statements Ex. P. 1 and Ex. P. 2 alleged to have been made by the accused before the Customs Authorities.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.