1969 (6) TMI 22 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Conviction under section 135 of the Customs Act and Rule 126P(2) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962.
2. Possession of the third-floor room and the confiscated gold.
3. Discrepancies in the search process and search lists.
4. Production of the key for the steel cupboard and recovery of personal papers.
5. Failure of the prosecution to prove possession of the third-floor room and the gold.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appellant was convicted under section 135 of the Customs Act and Rule 126P(2) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and a fine for possession of gold bars and a gold rod. The appeal challenges this conviction based on the prosecution's case of possession of the confiscated gold.

2. The prosecution alleged that the appellant was in possession of the third-floor room where the gold was found. However, the defense claimed innocence and lack of association with the third-floor room or the gold. The prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the appellant's possession of the third-floor room and the confiscated gold, raising doubts about the conviction.

3. The search process raised concerns as two separate searches were conducted simultaneously, resulting in discrepancies in the search lists. The entries in the search lists indicated different occupants for the rooms, casting doubt on the appellant's possession of the third-floor room where the gold was discovered.

4. The prosecution contended that the appellant produced the key for the steel cupboard where the gold was concealed. However, inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of concrete evidence raised doubts about the key's production and the recovery of personal papers linking the appellant to the confiscated items.

5. Ultimately, the court found that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant's possession of the third-floor room or the confiscated gold beyond a reasonable doubt. The discrepancies in the search process, lack of conclusive evidence, and inconsistencies in testimonies led to the acquittal of the appellant and the overturning of the conviction.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of establishing possession beyond reasonable doubt in cases involving confiscated items. The lack of concrete evidence, discrepancies in the search process, and inconsistencies in testimonies undermined the prosecution's case, resulting in the appellant's acquittal.