9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (5) TMI 142X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ime, another associate of the appellant, namely Harish Verma had been intercepted by Customs Officers at the reception of the Hotel. He led the Customs Officers to the hotel room No. 1318. The said Harish Verma had himself opened the said room with a key in his possession. In the said room, search of Harish Verma resulted in recovery of 4 gold biscuits from his person. On search of a Safari suit lying in the said hotel room a cloth container was found to contain another 60 gold biscuits. 3. A Panchnama of recovery of the gold biscuits (120 in all) was made in the room of the hotel. Preparation of Panchnama went past the midnight upto 0.30 hrs on 6-1-1987. Panchas (witness to the recovery) were two persons namely (i) Randhir Singh, Security Officer of the hotel and (ii) Mohan Joshi a Security Guard posted in the hotel at that time. 4. It is stated by Revenue that after preparation of the Panchnama the appellant and Harish Verma were served a summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act to appear before the DRI at 1.00 A.M. on 6-1-1987 in DRI Office. Ld. Advocate for the appellant states that statement from the appellant was recorded under threat, duress and coercion or he was ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allegations that the Noticee was found sitting in Car No. DDB 5871 (White Maruti) has not been confirmed by Shri R. Singh, Security Officer, the main alleged witness, not even by Shri B.S. Vasudeva, the Assistant Director incharge of the operations. Both of them have only heard about the alleged interception of the Noticee. This is purely a hearsay and not evidence. What is more, it has been stated by Shri Mohan Joshi, the second alleged witness that the alleged recovery of gold biscuits was not finalised in the basement and the gold biscuits were counted only in Room No. 1318 of the Hotel. I do not know any person by the name Nageen Chand Jain of Ashok Vihar, Delhi nor he has been offered as witness as the owner of the said car, to arrive at the truth. Also even Shri Parameshwaran, the I.O. the alleged searching officer, has clearly stated that the Briefcase was lying on the back seat of the car. It is also submitted that the presumption that the Briefcase was in the possession of the Noticee also falls to the ground. There are too many serious contradictions and loopholes to the evidence of the witnesses to connect the Noticee with the so-called events of recovery of 120 gold bi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DRI Officers. Some statements were got written of him and he was forced to sign even on blank papers. The Noticee denies his involvement in all these events." 9. Ld. Advocate has been taken us through the Cross-examination statements of B.S. Vasudeva, Assistant Director in DRI, Randhir Singh, Mohan Joshi Parameshwaran, I.O. 10. He submits on the basis of the evidence of the 4 witnesses that they have given different and conflicting versions which demolish the case as alleged in the show-cause notice. According to him, following position emerges from the Cross-examination evidence of the witnesses of Revenue :- (i) None of the witnesses has seen the appellant arriving in Kanishka Hotel. (ii) No authorised officer intercepted the appellant in the car parked in basement. (iii) Shri Vasudeva has clearly admitted that the appellant was neither intercepted by the Officers nor searched physically in his presence. He was only told about it because he was supervising the overall operations and he could not be present everywhere all the time. Ld. Advocate urges that this is nothing but hearsay evidence. (iii) Shri Parmeshwaran I.O. is too hazy about recovery of gold biscuits. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the retracted confessional statement of the appellant, has sought corroboration from the statement of retracted statements of Harish Verma, seizure of currency worth Rs.10 Lakhs from the appellants shop. 12. Both sides have placed reliance on certain judgements of the Apex Court. Most prominent among them being that of Apex Court in the case of K.I. Pavunni v. A.C.C.E. [1997 (90) E.L.T. 241]. Revenue has also placed reliance on Apex Court s judgement in the case of Naresh J. Sukhwani [1996 (83) E.L.T. 258 (S.C.)]as also in the case of Surjeet Singh Chhabra [1997 (89) E.L.T. 646 (S.C.)]. 13. In view of the above pleadings first question before us is whether recovery of gold biscuits - 13 from the person of the appellant herein and 43 from the briefcase alleged to be in his possession when he was allegedly intercepted in case DDB 587 from the appellant was made or not. 14. Reliance placed by the Revenue, first and foremost, for this purpose is the Panchnama (of recovery) made by the Officers. It is alleged as already pointed out, that two independent witnesses Randhir Singh Mohan Joshi witnessed the said recovery on interception of the appellant in the basement parking lot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
