Section 186 of Customs Act bars the proceedings u/s 167(81) of the Act.

Somasundaram, J.

(1) The petitioner was tried by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ramanathapuram, for offences under Section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act and Section 8(2) read with Sec. 23-B and Sec. 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act VII of 1947, and sentenced to six months R. I., for the offence under Sec. 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act and for a similar term for the offence under S. 8(2) read with S. 23-B of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, the sentences to run concurrently. In appeal the conviction and sentence for the offence under Sec. 8(2) read with Sec. 23-B of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act were set aside but the conviction and sentence for the offence under section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act were confirmed.

(2) The circumstances under which the petitioner was tried and convicted are these: The petitioner was a passenger bound for Ceylon. He came to the Customs baggage shed at Danushkadipier on 5-2-1958 for embarkation. He made a declaration in Ex. P-1 that he had only Rs. 10 in Indian currency notes. P.W. 1, the Inspector, Central Excise, Dhanushkodi examined the baggage and found that he had no dutiable articles. But P.W. 2, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who had information that the accused was carrying currency notes, followed him and question him. He gave the Deputy Superintendent of Police the same reply as he gave to P.W. 1. The accused was then wearing a cap and chapels. P.W. 2 cut open one of the chapels and found two packets rolled in white paper inserted in the chapel. He found 35 notes of RS. 100 denomination in one packet and 30 notes of similar denomination in the other packet. Similarly he cut open the other chappal (M.O.2), and he found therein also two packets containing in all 65 notes of Rs. 100 denomination.

There were thus 130 notes of Rs. 100 denomination found hidden in the two chappals. The cap of the accused was then cut open and P.W. 2 found in the cap (M. O.3) 130 currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination concealed around the cap between the card board padding and the outer fur of the cap. All these were seized and a mahazar Ex. P. 2 was prepared for the same. The Mahzar was attested by P. Ws. 3 to 5. P.W. 2 also recorded a statement, Ex. P. 3, from the accused and it was attested by P. Ws. 6 and 7. It is doubtful whether this statement is admissible in view of the fact that it was an admission made to a police officer. The Deputy Superintendent also seized the railway receipt, Ex. P. 4, The accused did not show the officer concerned any reserve bank licence to carry currency notes to the above extent. The currency notes were confiscated and a penalty also was imposed though it is not clear from the judgment as to what penalty was imposed. Then the Assistant Collector or Customs on the authority of the Collector filed a compliant before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for the offences mentioned above.

(3) The accused does not deny the recovery of the currency notes from him but he denies that it was recovered in the manner alleged. In short he says that without his knowledge the currency notes were in his hand bag, and they were recovered from the bag. The lower court very rightly rejected the defence and accepted the evidence of the prosecution and found that the notes were recovered in the manner alleged which clearly showed that the accused kept these things hidden. Undoubtedly, he intended to take these currency notes to Ceylon but before they could be taken they were seized from him. It is, therefore, clearly established on the facts that the accused did carry these currency notes hidden in the chappals and in the cap for the purpose of taking them to Ceylon. The trial Court convicted him as aforesaid i.e., for offences under Sec. 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act and Sec. 8(2) read with Sec. 23-B of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act; and AS already stated, in appeal the conviction for the offences under the Sea Customs Act was confirmed, the accused having been a