SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.H. BEG, P.N. BHAGWATI AND R.S. SARKARIA, JJ.
Balumal Jamnadas Batra, Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No.74 of 1971
D/-29-8-1975.
Advocates Appeared
N. H. Hingoorani and Mrs. K. Hingoorani. Advocates, for Appellant; Mr. S. B. Wad and M. N. Shroff Advocates for Respondent.
Held, that the appellant did not admit the possession of the goods at all and had he succeeded in explaining satisfactorily how he was an innocent receiver of goods without knowing that they were illegally imported or sumggled, he would have had a chance of getting the benefit of doubt. The appellant's conduct, including his untruthful denial of their possession, indicated consciousness of their sumggled character or mensrea.
(Para 7)
Judgement
BEG, J.:- The appellant before us by special leave to appeal was convicted under Section 135 (b) (ii) of the Customs Act. 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2.000/-, and, in default, to three month, further rigorous imprisonment. Goods in respect of which this offence was found to have been committed were also confiscated,
2. On 21-4-1967. Police Officers of the Anti-Corruption and Prohibition Bureau, Greater Bombay, acting on information received, had searched room No. 10 at 56. Sheriff Deoji Street, Bombay. This room was divided by partitions into three parts. In the central portion the police found the appellant and three other persons. This portion was again sub-divided with a locked connecting door fixed in the passage to the sub-divided part. This was opened by one of the two Godrej lock keys produced by the appellant from a side pocket of his trousers. Eleven wooden boxes covered with jute cloth and secured by iron strips were found there. On opening them, six of them were found to contain cigarette lighters of "Imco Trplex Junior" brand "Made in Austria". Each of the six boxes were tightly packed with 1,200 lighters. The remaining five boxes contained fifty sealed tins of flints for cigarette lighters which bore the following writing. "Tego Lighter Flints of Superior Quality Made in Germany". On the wooden boxes containing the lighters were found written "Dubai" and "Made in Austria". The five boxes containing flints had the words "Dubai" and "Made in West Germany" inscribed on them. A panchnama was prepared before Panchas. A rent receipt in the name of the appellant in respect of room No. 10. in this house, of which a portion was occupied by the appellant, and a bill for the consumption of electricity were also seized from the custody of the appellant together with the Godrej lock and the keys produced by the appellant. Subsequently, the seized articles were made over to the Inspector of Central Excise and Customs. Marine and Prevention Division. Bombay on 24-4-1967.under Section 110 of the Customs Act.
3. The value of 7.200 cigarette lighters was stated as Rs. 14,400/- and of 250 tins of flints as Rs. 15.000/- on which Customs duty of Rs. 15.840/ - and Rupees 10.500/- respectively was alleged to be payable. In the complaint filed on 30th October, 1968, by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise. Marine and Prevention Division. Bombay, it is alleged that the cigarette lighters and flints were imported into India without an import licence and in contravention of provisions of Government of India, Ministry of Commerce & Industry. Import Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1955 (as amended) issued under S. 3(2) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, which was to be deemed to be an order passed under Section it of the Act. It was submitted that the accused, having been concerned in a fraudulent evasion of payment of Rs. 26.340/- as customs duty to the Government, had committed offences punishable under Section 135 (a) and (b) of the Act. The goods were also as a necessary consequence said to be liable to confiscation under Section 111 (d) of the Act.
4. The appellant had denied being in possession of the offending goods although he had admitted the production of keys from his possession. He alleged that the portion of the room from which the goods were recovered was sub-let to Dwarumal and Kishen who had kept the goods there. The appellant s explanation had been disbelieved the trying Magistrate as well as by the High Court. The production of the key which, according to the prosecution evidence, the appellant had at first refused to produce, proved that the portion in which the boxes were kept was in appellant s exclusive possession with all that was contained in it. It is possible that he may have sub-let other portions of the partitioned room to other persons but there is no reason to doubt that the appellant was not only in po
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.