1968 (4) TMI 21 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Conviction under Section 135(b)(ii) of the Customs Act and Rule 126-P(2)(ii) and (iv) and (vi) of Gold Control Order.

Analysis:
1. The revision petitioner was convicted under Section 135(b)(ii) of the Customs Act and various rules of the Gold Control Order. The charges were framed based on the interception of the petitioner at a railway station with contraband gold in his possession. The petitioner admitted to carrying the gold and made statements acknowledging his involvement.

2. The prosecution case detailed the circumstances of the petitioner's arrest and seizure of gold bars and sovereigns from his person. The petitioner's defense was that he was unaware of the contents of the cloth pouch containing the gold and claimed that he was asked to carry it by a third party. However, the overwhelming evidence against him, including his admissions, supported the conviction under Section 135(b)(ii) of the Customs Act.

3. The defense challenged the conviction under Rule 126-P(2)(ii) and (iv) of the Gold Control Order, arguing that mere possession as a carrier did not constitute acquisition as per the relevant provisions. The defense contended that possession did not equate to acquisition, citing legal definitions of "acquire" to support their argument.

4. The court analyzed the provisions of Rule 126-H(2)(d) and Rule 126-P(2)(iv) of the Gold Control Order, emphasizing the distinction between possession and acquisition. It concluded that the petitioner, as a carrier, did not acquire the gold but was only in possession of it temporarily. The court set aside the conviction and sentence under Rule 126-P(2)(ii) and (iv) and (vi) and acquitted the petitioner of that offense.

5. However, the court confirmed the conviction under Section 135(b)(ii) of the Customs Act due to the petitioner's involvement in smuggling contraband gold. The court reduced the petitioner's sentence of imprisonment to the period already served but imposed a fine in default of further imprisonment. The gold confiscated during the arrest was also upheld to be confiscated.

6. In conclusion, the revision petition was dismissed with the modification of reducing the petitioner's sentence and imposing a fine. The court upheld the conviction under the Customs Act while acquitting the petitioner of the offense under the Gold Control Order due to the distinction between possession and acquisition.