Judgment

KHANNA, J.:- The facts of the case have been set out in the judgment of my learned brother Krishna Iyer J. and need not be repeated.

2. Two principal contentions have been raised on behalf of the appellant. It is urged in the first instance that the finding that the appellant was in possession of the gold bars with foreign markings recovered from his shop and of indigenous gold recovered from his residential premises cannot be sustained. In this respect I find that the trial court and the High Court on consideration of the evidence brought on record have arrived at the conclusion that the appellant was in possession of the gold bars and indigenous gold in question. Nothing cogent has been brought to our notice as may justify interference with this concurrent finding of fact based upon appreciation of evidence. I, therefore, reject the first contention.

3. Equally devoid of force is the second contention that the Customs officer cannot under S. 107 of the Customs Act, 1962 examine any person who is subsequently arraigned as an accused in respect of the possession of smuggled gold. According to clause (b) of Section 107, any officer of customs empowered in this behalf by genera