Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.M. SIKRI, G.K. MITTER AND K.S. HEGDE, JJ.
Hira H. Advani etc., Appellants
Versus
State of Maharashtra (In all Appeals), Respondent.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 86 to 90 of 1968, D/- 13-8-1969.
Advocates appeared
M/s. R. Jethmalani, K. N. Mirchandani and U. P. Singh, Advocates, for Appellant (In Cri. Appeal No. 86 of 1968), M/s Nur-ud-din Ahmed, K. N. Mirchandani and U. P. Singh, Advocates for Appellant (In Cri. Appeal No 87 of 1968); Mr. A S. R. Chari, Senior Advocate, (Mr. J. M. Mirchandani and Mrs. K. Hingorani, Advocates, with him), for Appellant (In Cri. Appeal No. 88 of 1968); Mrs. K. Hingorani, Advocate, for Appellant (In Cri. Appeal No. 89 of 1968); Mr. N. H. Hingorani, Advocate for Mrs. K Hingorani, Advocate, for Appellant (In Cri. Appeal No. 90 of 1968), Dr. L. M Singhvi, Senior Advocate (M/s B. D Sharma and S. P. Nayar Advocates, with him), for Respondent (In all the Appeals).
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 20 (3) and 134 (1) (c) - Indian Penal Code - Section 120-B - Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 - Section 5 - Sea Customs Act - Section 167 (81) and 171-A - Evidence Act - Section 132 - Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 107 and 108 – Income-tax Act 1922 – Section 37 - Offfence of Criminal Conspiracy - Evidence - Appeals by a certificate - Appellants before and two others were prosecuted by Assistant Collector of Bombay for offences of conspiracy and substantive offenses punishable - Gist of complaint was that all accused knowingly and with intent to defraud Government of India of duty payable thereon and/or to evade prohibitions and restrictions for time being in force under or by virtue of Sea Customs 46 Act with respect thereto - Whether an Income-tax Officer exercising powers under S. 37 of Income-tax Act. 1922 was a court within meaning of S. 195(1) (b) of Code of Criminal Procedure making sanction thereunder obligatory for tiling of a complaint in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed - Held, power to examine persons has been given to all officers of customs by first of above-mentioned sections and power to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents as in Sec. 171-A is given to a gazetted officer of customs - In Court view, this difference is immaterial for purpose of this case and there is nothing in Section 171-A which limits right of interrogation to questions answers whereto may not incriminate person interrogated - High Court considered at some length question as to whether statement of accused under Section 171-A (4) should be considered as a whole or whether reliance could be placed upon portions thereof rejecting rest - It was argued before High Court that inasmuch as statements were sought to be relied upon as a confession Court was bound to take into account not only portions containing admissions but also explanations which followed - High Court held that a statement did not stand at par with a confession so that it had to be taken as a whole or rejected as a whole - Order accordingly.
The provided legal document does not mention or discuss the role, functions, or significance of a commissioner for oaths. It primarily focuses on the powers and procedures related to customs officers, the admissibility of statements made under specific sections of customs law, and the nature of proceedings before customs authorities. There is no reference or commentary regarding commissioners for oaths or their functions within the context of this case.
Judgment
MITTER, J.- This group of appeals by a certificate under Art 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution of India granted by the High Court of Bombay disposing of Criminal Appeals Nos. 497 to 500 and 516 of 1965 upholding substantially the conviction and sentences passed against the appellants by the Presidency Magistrate, 2nd Court Mazgaon, Greater Bombay.
2. The appellants before us and two others were prosecuted by the Assistant Collector of Bombay for offences of conspiracy and substantive offenses punishable under Sec. 167 (81) of the Sea Customs Act and Sec. 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The gist of the complaint was that all the accused knowingly and with intent to defraud the Government of India of duty payable thereon and/or to evade the prohibitions and restrictions for the time being in force under or by virtue of the Sea Customs 46 Act with respect thereto viz., Sec. 3 (2) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 entered into a conspiracy in Bombay and other places during the period commencing from August 1958 and August 1959 to acquire possession and to be concerned in carrying, removing, concealing and otherwise dealing with prohibited and restricted goods in very large quantities of the C.I.F. value of not less than Rs. 1,45,328/- and in relation to the said contraband goods to be knowingly concerned in fraudulent evasion of or attempt at evasion of the duty chargeable thereon and of the prohibition and restriction as aforesaid applicable to the said goods and thus committed offences under Sec. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sec. 167 (81) of the Sea Customs Act as amended and Sec. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sec. 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947
3. After recording the evidence of a large number of witnesses, charges were framed against all the accused by the Magistrate in December 1962. The second and the third charge related to consignments brought into India by s. s. Canton and s. s. Star Arcturus respectively. The fourth and fifth charges related to consignments of s. s. Nissan Maru. The sixth charge related to s. s. Hikone Maru: the seventh charge related to s. s. Obra: the eighth charge to s. s. Nagara Maru and the ninth to s. s. Wakasima Maru. Accused No. 6 was not before the court as he was absconding and accused No. 7 was acquitted of all the Charges. The Magistrate by his judgment dated February 25, 1965 convicted all the appellants of the main charge and each of the accused excepting accused No. 7 of diverse charges under the main heading of charges 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively. Sentences of imprisonment and fine were imposed on all the accused. Excepting for setting aside the conviction in respect of some of the charges which it is not material to state, the High Court of Bombay in appeal upheld the conviction and sentences passed against all the accused.
4. The particulars of the different accused according to the prosecution were as follows. The first accused, appellant in Appeal No. 86 of 1968, acted as manager of a concern carrying on business in the name of Messrs H. B. Advani Brothers at 251, Hornby Road, Bombay. He had proprietary and financial interest in the business and was at the material time in sole charge of that business. The second accused Moti H. Advani appellant in Appeal No. 87 of 1968, was a brother of accused No. 1 and carried on business in the name of Messrs. Indo Far-East Traders. His business premises were at 2, Waterloo Mansion, Colaba, Bombay. Accused No. 3, Megharaj Gopaldas Jham, appellant in Appeal No. 88 of 1968 carried on business in the name of Fine Art Traders along with his partner, accused No 5 Arjan Ghanshyamdas Tejwani appellant in Appeal No. 90 of 1968. The business premises of Fine Art Traders was at 250, Carnac Road, Bombay. Accused No. 5 had also a family concern in the name of Fine Art Museum carried on at the same place. Kishanchand Assandass Megnani, accused No 4 appellant, in Appeal No. 89 of 1968 was
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
