9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (9) TMI 254X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 15-5-1980 the Customs officers concerned intercepted both the appellants - holders of Indian Passports. As a result of examination of the baggage of appellant Avtar Singh, miscellaneous goods of foreign origin collectively valued at Rs. 20,186/- in addition to old and used clothes were recovered. Since the appellant Avtar Singh could not produce any proof of the lawful import of the said goods the same were seized by the Customs Officers under Section 110 of the Customs Act on the reasonable belief that the same had been imported into India illicitly in contravention of the provisions of law. On examination of the baggage of the appellant Smt. Mohinder Kaur, comprising of one attache, case and one big hand bag, miscellaneous goods of fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Singh that Manohar Singh s son delivered the goods to the former in Bangkok and that he had no son residing in Bangkok. However, no reply to the show cause notice was filed by Shri Hans Raj. After the usual enquiry, the Adjudicating Authority found that the seized goods in question were recovered and seized from the possession of the appellants and that the said Manohar Singh abetted the acts of the appellants and the said Hans Raj was concerned in carrying, removing, keeping, selling or purchasing of the goods in question which he knew or had the reason to believe that the same were liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. Accordingly it absolutely confiscated the seized goods and also imposed the various penalties ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sel for the appellants has any force. To begin with, it is wrong to say that Bharat Bhushan was the only panch witness who was produced by the Department for cross-examination. From the impugned order we observe that it was the counsel for the appellants who himself after cross-examination of Smt. Pukhraj Kaur on 18-8-1983 stated that he did not want to cross-examine the other witnesses. It deserves to be mentioned here that unlike the procedure laid down for leading evidence in criminal courts according to which a witness is first examined by the prosecution and his statement made on examination-in-chief is recorded before he is subjected to cross-examination, no such procedure is prescribed for customs adjudication proceedings. In other w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dence on record, we find other evidence on the record to connect the accused which we shall discuss here-in-after. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that Shri J.N. Bhatia has admitted in his statement that the first thing done after the two passengers were brought to the room was to call two witnesses and therefore this belie the version of the Department also cannot be accepted. It is trite law that while appeciating the evidence of a witness, his statement is always read as a whole and a stray sentence here or there cannot detract the veracity of the statement. So read, we find nothing in the statement of Shri Bhatia to conclude that this stray sentence belies the case of the Department particularly when he has admi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r recording the statements, to which, he candidly replied, it is also incorrect to suggest that the statements were given by these persons under threat, inducement and coercion by the officers of Customs before they were produced before him. It deserves to be mentioned here that Shri Gulati was not a member of the Preventive party who effected the seizure. A mere suggestion without evidence and that too without disclosing the nature of the alleged threat/inducement or coercion and the person who is said to have exercised the alleged threat, inducement or coercion leads nowhere and cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to be proved nor such a vague suggestion makes the confessional statement involuntary. 7. Apart from the said evi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one attache case and one big hand bag found with the appellant Smt. Mohinder Kaur and another attache case found with the appellant, Shri Avtar Singh, they were also carrying any other baggage. Besides the absence of the said defence of the appellants there is also nothing on the record to show that the appellants were also carrying any other baggage. This circumstance goes to the rest of the case and lends support to the conclusion that the contraband goods were recovered from the baggage of the appellants. Had it not been so the appellants would have definitely taken a plea in their defence that their baggage was also lying in the taxi or at least with them at the time when the other two persons said to have been occupying the taxi escap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
