LexVAJ,LABHDAS LILADBAR AND ORS. versus ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
VAJ,LABHDAS LILADBAR AND ORS. v. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS January 21, 1964 [P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR, K. N. WANCHOO, K. c. OAS GUPTA AND N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.J B Sea Customs Act, 1878 (8 of 1878) ss. 186, 167 (81}-Statements made to Customs authorities-If admissible in CTiminal trial-Con- a flscation and penalty imposed-If baTS pTosecution-Dealina in Gold proved to be .<muqgled-If against the law-Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 Of 1872), SS. 24, 25. Smuggled gold recovered from the appellants was confiscated and i a penalty· imposed on them .. Thereafter the appellants were tried and · j convicted under s. 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act. In their statements made to the customs authorities, the appellants had practicall)ll D admitted the prosecution case and these statement\; were put 1n evidence. An appeal to the Sessions Judge and a revision to the High Court were dismissed. In appeal to this Court : HELD: (i) Since the statements made to th<! customs authoritie• bore the signature of the appellants which were admitted, they must be taken to be nroved by such admission and no further evidence was E neces9ary. [858C] (ii) Customs officers are not in the circumstances arising In this case police officers and statements made to them were not inadmis- sible under s. 25 of the Evidence Act. Section 24 would apply, as customs authorities are persons in authority; and such statements would be inadmissible if vitiated by inducement, threat or promise. [858E-F] · 1 State of f'uniab v. BaTkat Ram, [1962] 3 S.CR. 338, followed. (iii) Section 186 of the Sea Customs Act, which is merely an enabling section, is no bar to a. prosecution for an offence under the Act in connection with a matter in which the award of ct>nflscation, penalty or increased rate of duty has been made. [859F, G] Leo Ray FTl!'I/ v. Superintendent of District Jail [1958] S.C.R. 822, I referred to. (Iv) Once the gold recoverad is proved to be smuggled whosoever is found to have brought it and dealt with it, thereafter, knowin11 it to be smuggled must be held to have had the intention of evadinll! duty or violating the prohibition or restriction. r860C-Dl CRIMINAL APPELLAlfE JURISDICTION· : Criminal Appeals Nos. B 48 and 80 of 1960. ·· · Appeals by special leave from the judgment and orders dated December 11, 1959 and Ma.rch 2, 1960 of the Bombay High Coun Rajkot (Now Gujarat High Court) Jn criminal Revision Applica- tion No. 100 of 1959. , , ' VALLABHDAS v. ASST. COLLECTOR (Wanclwo, J.) 85~ A N. N. Keswani, for the appellants (in both the appeals). B D. R. Prem and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent (in both the appeals). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Wanchoo J. The two appeals by special leave arise out of the sa:Ue criminal trial before a magistrate at Porbunder and will be dealt with together. The three appellants along with one more person, namely, Keshavlal Nagjibhai were prosecuted under s. 167 (81) of the Sea Customs Act, No. 8 of 1878, (here- inafter referred to as the Act). The prosecution case briefly was C that Vallabhdas Liladhar, who is now dead, came in contact with an Arab from whom he purchased smuggled gold weighing a little more than 84 to/as on December I, 1956. Before this, Vallabhdas Liladhar had borrowed Rs. 3,600/- from the other two appellants and Keshavlal about November 2S, 1956, in order to make the D E F G purchase. After making the purchase, Vallabhdas Liladhar came to Porbunder to the house of the other two appellants and Keshav- lal and informed them of the purchase and wanted their help in the disposal of the gold. The other two appellants namely, Naran- das Nagjibhai and Vallabhdas Nagjibhai are brothers. Keshavlal was also the brother of these two appellants. The prosecution case further was that Narandas Nagjibhai asked Vallabhdas Nagjibhai to take the gold to Bantwa and sell it at the rate of Rs. 103 /- or so per tola. Vallabhdas Nagjibhai was also instructed that in case he could not sell the gold at that rate he should contact Vallabhdas Liladhar and Nara,ndas Nagjibhai at Bantwa bus stand from where they were to go to Junagadh to dispose of the gold if no suitable buyer could be found in Bantwa. Consequently Vallabhdas Nagji- bhai proceeded to Bantwa by bus on December 2, 1956 in the after- noon. In the meantime information was received by Mehta who was Inspector of Customs about the smuggling of this g
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.