- (1.) This is an appeal against conviction under section 135 of the Customs Act and also under Rule 126P(2) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962. The appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months and also to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 1000, in default to rigorous imprisonment for three months in respect of the two offences. There was a further order for confiscation of the gold bars and gold rod.
(2.) The prosecution case is as follows :- Acting on certain information a team of Customs Officers came to 36B, Armenian Street, Calcutta with a search warrant under section 105 of the Customs Act in the morning of September 2, 1966. They searched three rooms, one on the first floor, one on the second floor and the third room on the third floor stated to be in possession of the appellant. On search of the first floor room, 498 pieces of wrist watches and other things were recovered and seized, from the second floor two pieces of wrist watches, one transistor radio and certain other things were recovered and seized. Then they came to the third floor room which was found locked. The key of the room was not produced by the appellant or anybody else and so the room was broken open and a locked steel cupboard was found inside. The appellant was interrogated and he produced two keys from the second floor room in his occupation and the cupboard was opened. Inside that cupboard were found concealed ten tolas of gold bars, one gold rod, 76 gold bars with foreign markings weighing ten tolas each and other articles. These were also seized. They also found a sum of Rs. 12,120 which was also seized. Thereafter, the Customs Officer recorded the statement made by the appellant. The appellant claimed the watches but disclaimed the gold bars. The present trial is in respect of the gold seized.
(3.) The defence is a plea of innocence and a further plea that he was not in occupation of the third floor nor had he anything to do with the cupboard or the gold. He also complained that there were two simultaneous searches for which two search lists were prepared and that these search lists would prima facie show that the third floor room was in occupation of different person. He denied that he produced the key and challenged the manner in which the seizure list was prepared after bringing down all the articles seized on the second floor.;