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 general or special order of the Collector of Customs may, during the course of any enquiry in connection with the smuggling of any goods, examine any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. There is nothing in the language of Section 107 to indicate that the words "any person" do not include a person who is subsequently arraigned as an accused. The language of Section 107 is clear and unambiguous and I find it difficult to place a restricted meaning on the words "any person" and to exclude from their ambit persons who may subsequently be put up for trial. The examination contemplated by clause (b) is of a person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of a case. Where a person is found in possession of smuggled gold he would obviously be a person who can be considered to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. In most of the cases he would indeed be the best person to throw light with regard to the smuggled gold found in his possession. I have not been able to discern any valid reason for excluding the examination of such a person from the purview of Section 107 of the Customs Act.

4. There is no sufficient ground for interference with the sentence. The appeal fails and is dismissed.

KRISHNA IYER, J.:- (with Sarkaria J.) 5. A white collar crime committed and detected in January 1965 took a demoralisingly leisurely course spread over 3 years in the trial court although only 21 witnesses were examined and the case was simple and supported by a nearly clinching statement of the only accused recorded fresh after the detection, the very day. An important component of fair trial is speedy hearing, and the deterrence of judicial punishment is diluted to the prejudice of public justice if, through dilatory hearings and ineffectual revisions unfortunate delays, such as mar this case, corrode the system and put the courts on trial before the community.

6. The criminal story here is short and the evidence adduced straight. The findings of fact are concurrent and the points of law fragile. The case has reached the SC on a certificate of fitness granted by the High Court.

7. One Shri Soni, the appellant herein, was engaged in bullion business, perhaps of a dubious character, because he appears to have attracted the attention of the customs authorities, who, undaunted by failure in one raid, kept track of the dealer. Several months before the episode which materialised in the present case, a fruitless search of the flat of Shri Soni had been made. But on May 10, 1965 better luck smiled on P. W. 1, a preventive officer of the Department thanks to timely and accurate intelligence received, pursuant to which the officer, to the due accompaniment of the formalities of the law, moved into 59, Manohar Das Street, Calcutta, where the