LexLABHCHAND DHANPAT SINGH JAIN versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A LABHCHAND DHANPAT SINGH JAIN v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA December 3, 1974 [M. H. BEG, Y. v. CHANDRACHUD AND A. c. GUPTA, JJ.] 907 B Customs Act, 1962, s. 108, 111, 123 and 135-Scope of, c D E G H ~1·idenct Act (I of 1~72) S-,106 and 114-Bur~en of proof oi lnnoce11t receipt of 110/d-Pres11mpt1011 against accused on totality of evidence, if pro- perly drawn. Code of Crimi111i/"Proced11re (Act 5 of 1898) s. 342-No strict compliance witlt.:__Effect of. The apjiellant was arrested because of his suspiciom; condu:t, and, when he was searched, 9 bars of gold with foreign markings were found . secreted in specially made concealed pockets of his trousers. When he was produced be· fore the Additional Chief Inspector of Customs he made a statement recorded l?.nder s.108, Customs Act, 1962. In that statement he admitted the recovery of the bars, •that h~ knew that he was carrying gold and that he knew that the the transporting of the gold was an offence, but stated that he was doin)! so OIJ behalf of a 3rd party. He was convicted ror an offence under s.135(1J(b) of the Act and the conviction was confirmed by the High Court. · In appeal to this Court, confirming the conviction, HELD: (I) The offence under s. 135(1)(b) is punishable if the offender · 'a:quires possession of or is in any way concerned in carrying, removing, de- positing, harbouring, keeping, concealing selling or purchMing or in any other manner dealing with any goods which h 0e knows or haJ reason to believe . are liable to confiscation under s.111. (909 C-D] In the present case, the totality of facts proved was enough to raise a pre- sumpti.on under s.114, Evidence Act, that the gold had been iUegally imported into the country so as to be covered bys. 111\d). [911 DJ (a) The clandestfoe and auilty manner of transporting it shows that it was recently smuggled gold carried contrary to law. (910 G-H] . (b) The appellant's admission that he knew that the carrying of gold was an offence shows that the gold must have been recently imported, or nt any rate after 1948, when restrictions on the import of gold were imposed. [910 HJ · ( c) The gold was being carried from Bombay, a Port of entry for smuggled goods to Delhi, where there is a market for gold: (910 G] ( d) The burden of proving an innocent receipt of gold lay on the appel. !ant under s. 106, Evidmce Act, and he had not discharged, the burden. [911 A..:..BJ bsard11s Dar"at Ram & Ors. v. Union of Ind/a and Ors., (1962] Suppl (I) SCR 358 followed. (2) Assuming that the ratio of Gia11 Chand v. Stale of Punjab rt962] Supp. , 1 S.C.R. 364 applied to the instant cooe, the result would only be that no pre- sumption under s. 123 of Customs Act could be drawn against the appellant. But neilher the trial Court nor the High Court had drawn any su.ch presump- tion against the appellant. The inference regarding the character of the gold recovered and the. appellant's guiliy knowledge was drawn from circumstan- tial evidence. [910 C-D] O) The general form of questions put in the case do not ~trictlv comnly wi'.h the p1..;rvisions of s.342, Cr.P.C., bur the appellant boo not suffered any 908 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1975) 2 s.c.R. injustice vitiating his conviction. He indicated in his answers that he ,would A give a written explanation and his written statement dealt elaborately w1.th all the circumst,ances appearing in the evidence· against him. [911 G-H] ( 4) In view of his age and the fact that there was no previous conviction, the sentence of 3 months R.I. was reduced to the period already undergone, which was nearly 3 months, as it was not desirable to send him back to jail for a few days. [912 A-BJ CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.. 79 B of 1971. · Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 16th January 1971 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Crimi- nal Appea~ No. 1168 of 1968. Hardayal Hardey and Ashok Grover, for the appellant. H. R. Khanna and M. N. Shroff, for the reij>ondent. The Jqdgment of the Court was. delivered by BEG, J.-The appellant aged 23 was arrested on 9-4-1967 by the Railway Police at the Bombay Central Railway Station as he was hurriedly trying to get into a second class compartment of the Frontier Mail boum;l for Delhi. It appears that manner in which he was trying to enter the second class compartment and his. nervolli'ness on being questioned by a Railway C.I.D. Police Officer
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.