1973 (6) TMI 68 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the accused were found in possession of the wrist watches and watch straps.
2. Whether the goods in question were smuggled.
3. Whether the accused had knowledge that the goods were smuggled.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Possession of Goods:
The prosecution's case was that the accused were found in a car with smuggled wrist watches and watch straps. The evidence presented included testimonies from police officers Kulkarni and Mokashi, who claimed they intercepted the car and found the goods inside. However, the two panch witnesses, Pardiwala and Multani, contradicted this by stating that the goods were found on the footpath and were placed in the car by the police. The learned Presidency Magistrate preferred the evidence of the panchas over the police officers, noting that the panchanama did not support the prosecution's version of events. The panch witnesses were deemed credible, and their testimonies were consistent with the defense's version. Consequently, the court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the possession of goods by the accused.

2. Smuggled Nature of Goods:
The prosecution relied on the presumption under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the testimonies of Hebbar and Nello to prove that the goods were smuggled. The learned Presidency Magistrate held that the presumption under Section 123 was not applicable as the seizure was initially made by the police, not under the Customs Act. The evidence provided by Hebbar and Nello was found insufficient to conclusively prove that the goods were smuggled. The court noted that the foreign markings on the watches could not be taken as proof of their origin, and the import of watches was not entirely prohibited but restricted under a license. The extract from the monthly statistics of foreign trade produced by Nello was deemed inadmissible and inconclusive. Therefore, the court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the goods were smuggled.

3. Knowledge of Smuggled Goods:
The prosecution argued that the accused had knowledge that the goods were smuggled, relying on the statement of accused No. 1 that he had asked Chhogalal about the contents of the packages. The learned Presidency Magistrate observed that the goods were wrapped, and there was no evidence to show that the accused knew the packages contained smuggled watches. The court held that the prosecution could not rely on a part of the statement of accused No. 1 without considering the whole statement, which did not prove possession. Additionally, there was no evidence to suggest that accused Nos. 2 and 3 had any knowledge of the contents of the packages or that they were smuggled. Consequently, the court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused had knowledge that the goods were smuggled.

Conclusion:
The learned Presidency Magistrate held that the prosecution failed to prove possession of the wrist watches and watch straps by the accused, that the goods were smuggled, and that the accused had knowledge that the goods were smuggled. The order of acquittal in favor of the accused was confirmed, and the appeal by the State was dismissed.