LexBALUMAL JAMNADAS BATRA versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
,;+. • ,. '• ~ l - f \ • B c D E F G H BALUMALJ~MNADASBATRA v. STAIB OF MAHARASHTRA August 29, 1975 [M. H. BEG, P. N. BHAGWATI AND R. S. SARKARIA, JJ.] 539 Custo1ns Act, 1962, Section 123, sub-sections (l) and (2)-Seizure of smug- gled goods prior to rtotification under sub-section (2)-Presurnption under sub- sectj_on ( 1 ), if could be applied subsequent td; notification to ihe goods seized. Section 123(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, provided that, where any goods to which this section applies are seized under this Act in the reasonable belief that they are smuggled goods, the burden of proving that they are not sn1uggled goods shall be on the person from whos-e possession the goods were seized. 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 Devji 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 key~_ produce4 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 .::igarette lighters of "Imco Triplex Junior" brand "Made in Austria''. Each Jf the six boxes were tightly packed with 1200 lighters. The rernaining five boxes contained fifty sealed tins of flints for cigarette li~hters which bore the following writing : ''Tego Lighter Flints of Superior Quality 1'1ade in Germany" inscribed on them. A panchnama was prepared before Panchas. A ·rent receipt in the name of the ap~Jlant 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 appelJant. On 30th October, 1968, the Assistant Collector of' Central Excise, Marine and Prevention Division, Bombay, filed a complaint alleging. that the appellant had committed offences ounishable under Section 135(a) and (b) of the Customs Act. The appellant had denied being in possession of the offending goods although he had admitted the production· of keys from his ,possession. The trying Presidency ~fagistrate convicted him under section 135(b)(ii) of the Customs Act. 1962 and sentenced him to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/~, and, in de- fault, to three months further rigorous imprisonment. The High Court dismissed his appeal. . This appeal has been preferred on the basis of the special leave granted by this Court. Tt was coniended for the appellant that: (i) the presumption contained in s.123 ( 1) of the Act would not place the onus- of proving innocent possession of the goods in question upon the appellant; and. (ii) the goods in respect of which the appel1ant was prosecuted were not .seiz.ed under the Act. Reje::ting the contentions and. dismissing the appeal. the court HELD: (i) Though lighters and flints were notified provided in Section 123(2), in the Official Gazette of 26-8-1%7 the provisions of Section 123(1) which only lay down a procedural rule, collld be applied when · the case. came up for tri~l before the Presidency Magistrate. He divided it on 15-7-1969. The complaint itself was filed on 30-10-1968. It i's immaterial that the appel~ !ant was found in possession of the goods on 21-4-1967. [542·B-C] (ii) !h~ verv appearance of the goods and the manner in which they were packed rnd1cated that they were newly manufactured and brought into this co~~try very recently from another country. The inscriptions on then1 and wnting on the boxes were part~ of the state in wh.ich t]i~ goods in unopened boxes were found from which inferences about their origin and r~cent import 5 40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1976] 1 S.C.R. could arise. The appellant's conduct, including his untruthful denial of their possession, indicated consciousness of their smugglied character or 1nens rea. There was some evidence· to enable the courts to come to the conclusion that the goods must have' been known to the appellant to be smuggled even if he was not a party to a fraudulent evasion of duty.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.