SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1960 Supreme(Mad) 371

ANANTANARAYANAN
The Public Prosecutor, Madras – Appellant
Versus
H. L. Modi – Respondent


Advocates:
M. Narayanamurthi for the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State.
R.M. Seskadri and B.T. Sundararajan, for Accused.

Order.-

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 Col










Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top