Pabitra Kumar Banerjee, J. - (1.) On 29th September, 1980, in the morning, pursuant to some source of information, a team of 15 Customs Officers led by the Superintendents. D. Singh and L.N. Muzumdar, boarded the vessel Murray Everett of Messrs. Everett Orient Lines (shortly the vessel) lying at Netaji Subhash Dock Calcutta and conducted search in presence of the Chief Steward Mr. Rodolfo T. Cardiente alias Rudy (Rudy in short), accused since acquitted and during search cigarette cartons and large quantities of Wrist Watches, coiled Filaments. Bulb Filaments etc... all of foreign origin valued at more than Rs. 25 lakhs, wrapped up in 35 packets were recovered underneath the baskets of eggs and apples concealed inside the vegetable room of the cold storage of the vessel. All the articles thus recovered were seized under a seizure list exhibit-I prepared in presence of the accused and some witnesses. On the same date and on some other dates subsequent thereto, Rudy made certain statements giving out the names and addresses of the persons who had planned, financed and conspired in smuggling of contraband articles into India through the instrumentality of one Customs Officer called Khan. Rudy was placed under arrest under Section 104 of the Customs Act, 1962.
(2.) On 13th April, 1981, Mr. M. Prasad, Assistant Collector of Customs, attached to Calcutta Customs, made a complaint in writing before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, after obtaining sanction from the Collector against K.K. Vaghani alias Bala. Rodolfo T. Cardiente alias Rudy. N.W. Peter and the Preventive Officer of Calcutta Customs. A.H. Khan for prosecution on charges under Sections 135 (1)(b)(i) and 136(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code setting out with some more details certain facts and circumstances under which the seizure of the articles took place and the accused Rudy was palced under arrest, as stated above.
(3.) The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, issued process against all the four accused named in the petition of complaint, when one of them. Mr. Anwarul Hassan Khan, moved this Hon'ble Court in Revision being Criminal Revision Case No. 553 of 1982 for quashing the criminal proceeding directed against him and obtained a stay order staying further proceeding of the trial before the Learned Magistrate. Later, in partial modification of the stay order, trial against Mr. Rudy alone was allowed to proceed and he faced the trial to answer the charge under Section 135(1)(i) of the Act. The trial ended in acquittal and the complainant, feeling aggrieved has referred this appeal directed against the said order. The criminal revision, of which reference has already been made and which is still pending, has also been heard alone with the appeal one after another because both the appeals and the Cr. Revision arise out of the same petition of complaint and neither party objected to such analogous hearing. That is how both the matters have come up for our decision. We propose to deal with the Criminal appeal first. After admission of the appeal there was an order for releasing the accused on bail after rearrest. Since then, the order could not be executed with the result that none appeared on behalf of the respondent at the time of the hearing of this appeal. We heard the learned Advocate for the appellant and perused the papers.;