Scope of the provisions of the Act.

Crl. R.C. No. 843 of 1959) to take up these related proceedings in their logical order, is a proceeding in revision against the conviction of the revision petitioner (H.L. Modi), under section 167 (8-l) of the Sea Customs Act, which conviction was confirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge of Chingleput. Crl.R.C. No. 842 of 1959 is a revision proceeding by the Public prosecutor against the sentence in the case, which was reduced on appeal by the learned Sessions Judge of Chingleput to a fine of Rs. 1,000 alone, setting aside the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months imposed by the trial Court.

The facts are very simple, though the matter reveals a somewhat tangled history with regard to the facts of trial. On 14th December, 1957, this revision petitioner (H.L. Modi) disembarked at Meenambakkam aerodrome from an aeroplane which flew from Bombay to Madras. He was interrogated by certain Customs Officials, and his trunk was searched ; with the result that underneath certain articles of clothing a tin box was found containing 247 wrist watches of “Record” manufacture, most of them new. A mahazar was duly drafted for the seizures, and, in the office of the Collector of Central Excise where the petitioner was detained for some time, he made a statement admitting the broad facts, which is Exhibit-P. 2 in the case. Subsequently, the petitioner was charge-sheeted under section 167 (8-1) of the Sea Customs Act. At a later stage of the proceedings, section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, was added as a supplemental charge, and the case was transferred to the file of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Poonamallee, as offences triable by a First Class Magistrate were involved.

But, when the case reached the stage of arguments before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, it was virtually conceded that the charge relating to section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, could not be sustained ; it was accordingly dropped. The essence of the case, as far as this charge is concerned, was that the revision petitioner, a businessman residing at Pondicherry, illicitly imported these identical watches prior to 1st November, 1954, and later illicitly smuggled them into Indian Union limits, after the merger of Pondicherry. But frankly, the prosecution were unable to establish the identity of the watches upon which this charge depended. The charge was relinquished and, as I already stated, the revision petitioner was convicted under section 167 (8-l) of the Sea Customs Act alone.

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner (Mr. R.M. Seshadri) has pressed before me the main argument that, once the charge under section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, was dropped, the charge under section 167(8-/) of the Sea Customs Act did not survive, viewed broadly with reference to the facts of the record. In the revision proceeding itself other matters are mooted, such as the request of the revision petitioner to examine himself under section 342-A, Criminal Procedure Code, as, at one stage of the proceedings in this Court, Sornasundaram, J.,was inclined to record the further evidence of the person from whom the revision petitioner claimed to have purchased these watches at Bombay. But, admittedly, nothing else was done. The question now is whether the charge under section 167 (8-1) of the Sea Customs Act can be said to survive at all, upon the established facts. If it does not survive, there is obviously no further question of recording of evidence, or the rights of the revision petitioner (accused) to examine himself, flowing from that supplemetal evidence.

On a careful consideration of the facts of the present matter, I am inclined to agree that no offence separately punishable under section 167(8-1) of the Sea Customs Act has been made out in this case, once it is conceded that the identity of the watches was not established. Section 167(8-1) is itself something of an omnibus provision