BALDEO RAJ BHATIA Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was convicted by the Additional District. Magistrate, Manipur, under Section 7(3) of the Land Customs Act, 1924 and under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and sentenced to 3 months' R.I. and 6 months' R.I. respectively. On appeal to the Sessions Judge, his conviction and sentence under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports Act, were set aside, but the conviction and sentence under Section 7(3) of the Land Customs Act were maintained by the Sessions Judge. Against that the petitioner has come up in revision.

(2.) THE facts are beyond dispute. On 26 -10 -1957, the petitioner, who was a Calcutta bound passenger from Imphal was attempting to take a suitcase in the Plane without it. being registered or checked by the Customs Officer. It was detected by the Customs Inspector - Sri N.C. Banerji at the Koirengei Airport when it was seen without any label under the postal mail, which was ready for despatch by the plane. When questioned by the Customs Inspector, the petitioner admitted his ownership of the baggage and when he was asked to open it for inspection he at first refused to open it, but ultimately it was opened and 405 Parker 51 pencils made in England were seen inside the suitcase for which the petitioner was not able to produce any satisfactory documentary evidence showing bona fide purchase or licit importation. The import of such pencil required a permit under Section 5 of the Land Customs Act and an import licence under the notification of the Government of India, issued under Section 3(1) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and they were also liable to payment of duty, which for the 405 pencils would amount to over Rs. 4,000/ -, The suitcase containing the pencils was therefore seized by the Customs Inspector and the matter was reported to the Higher Authorities.

(3.) THEREAFTER , a letter of authority was given by the Collector of Central 'Excise and Land Customs to the Superintendent. Central Excise and Land Customs to institute a criminal case under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 against the petitioner as it was left that the gravity of offence committed required prosecution under Section 5 of the said Act. Then a complaint was filed by the Superintendent, Central Excise and Land Customs on 21 -6 -1960, i.e. 2 years: and 8 months after the seizure of the goods against the petitioner under Section 7(3) of the Land Customs Act and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, read with Section 9 of the Land Customs Act. Charges were framed under the two sections. The Additional District Magistrate, as I said, convicted the petitioner under both the sections. But the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the petitioner of the charge under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act on a technical ground, namely, that the letter of authorisation: - Ext. A/2 given by the Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs for the prosecution was not sufficient and that under Section 6 of the said Act, as it then stood, an Officer authorised by the Central Government had to file the complaint and there was no evidence that the Superintendent, Central Excise was so authorised. But the conviction under Section 7(3) of the Land Customs Act was confirmed by the Sessions Judge.