STATE OF MAHARASIITRA versus NATWARLAL DAMODARDAS SONI

Citation: [1980] 2 S.C.R. 340 · Decided: 04-12-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. SARKARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

\ 
A 
B 
c 
340 
STATE OF MAHARASIITRA 
v. 
NATWARLAL DAMODARDAS SONI 
December 4, 1979 
[R. S. SARKARIA AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.J 
\\ • 
• 
Code of Crhninal Procedure-Anti Corruption Bureau seized sn1uggled gold 
fro1n_ the house of the ac.cuset,l-Poli'ce-lj had no 
iuri.~diction to take~ 
.. 
cognizance. 
, 
~-; "W-
Customs Act, 1962-S. 135-Scope of-Burden of proof that gold sriced is 
not smuggled gold-On whom rests. 
Words and phrases--"Acquired possession'' or "Keepi11g"-Mea.ning cf. 
The Anti--Corruption Bureau of the Police raided the house of the 1espon. 
dent and recovered gold biscuits with foreign markings stitched in a · jacket 
lying int a steel trunk underneath some cloth~. At the time of the ra{d, th~ 
D 
respondent was not in the house but his wife and mother were present. At 
about the same time the Customs Authorities also raided his house and took 
proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962 in respect of the smuggled gold found 
in the house. The respondent, who remained absconding, surrendere.C. to the 
police a week thereafter. 
~ 
E 
F 
At the trial the· respondent contended ~at the gold was brought 
jn~G his 
house by someone and left there in his absence and that, therefore, he had no 
connection with the gold. The trial court rejected the respondent's defence 
and convicted him of the offences. 
' 
I 
On appeal, the High Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove~ ~ 
that the gold found in the house of the respondent was gold on which duty 
...._ 
had been evaded or the import of which was prohibited and that for that reason 
' 
the further question whether the gold was smuggled gold did not ari5e. Tt also 
interpreted rule 126H(2)(d) of the Defence of India Rules 1962 read with 
rule 126 P(2)(iv) as confined to acquiring ownership and not to the more 
acquiring of possession and held that there was no acceptance of gold by the 
accused within the meaning of the Rules because not being present in the !iouSe, 
he bad no choice of accepting or refusing the gold. 
Jn appeal to this rourt it \Vas contended on behalf of the respondent that 
• 
~ (i) the. search of his honse and the seizure of gold by the police was illegal; 
• 
H 
(ii) that section 123 of the Customs Act was .not applicable because the seizure ' 
was made not by the Customs Authorities but by the police under the Code. of~\ 
Crintlnal Procedure and therefore the burden of proving the offence lay on thC 
police which it did not discharge. 
Rejecting the respondent's contention and allowing the appeals, 
HELD : 1. The police had powen; under the Code of Criminal Procedure 
to search and seize the gold if they had reason to believe that a cognizable 
offence had been committed. Assuming that the search was illegal it Y.:ould 
' 
) 
I. 
• 
' MAHARASHRTA V· NATWAR LAL DAMODAR DAS (Sarkaria, J.) 341 
npt affect either the validity of the seizure and further investigation by the 
A 
CUStoms Authorities or the validity of the trial which followed on the com-
plaint cf the Assistant Collector of Customs. [344 HJ 
Radhakislzan v. State of U.P. [1963] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 
408; 
Shyam 
Lal 
Sharma & Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 886; State 
of..Kerala etc. v. Alasserry Mohammed etc. A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 933; W. T. Stone, 
Warden, 74-1055 v. Lloyd Charles Powell and Charles L. Wolff Jr. 
Warden, 
B 
74-1222 v. David L. Rice (1976) USSC Bulletin, Vol. 2, B 4840, referred to. 
2. :a) The High Court was in error in acquitting the 
appellant of the 
charges under clauses (a) and (b) of section 135(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, 
[350 G] 
~~.' (b) Even if the prosecution could not invoke the provisions of section 123 
of.the Customs Act there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to establish that 
the gold was smuggled gold. [346 HJ 
c 
(c) Jn order to substantiate a charge under clause (b) of section 135(1), 
the prosecution has to prove (i) that the accused had acquired possession or 
Was in any way concerned in k~eping or concealing the gold bars (ii) that he 
knew or had reason to• believe that these gold bars were sfiluggled goods and 
thus liable to confiscation under section 111 of the Customs Act. 
[347 GJ 
(d) Even in cases where section 123(1) of the Customs Act is not attracted 
the prosecution can discharge its burden by establishing 
circun~starices ftom 
which a prudent man acting prudently may infer that in all 
probability the 
goods in question were smuggled goods and the accused had the requisite guilty 
kn

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.