9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (3) TMI 379X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in his statement claimed that he had come to secure gold on behalf of Shri Shrichand Jain of Dharwad, that Shri Shrichand given him telephone number of a shop in the name and style of S. Kasturchand Co. along with their telephone numbers from where he could secure the gold. He further stated that he had appointed one Ravi Ganguly as agent, whose telephone number was also in his knowledge, to secure gold. The gold under seizure was received by him from Ravi Ganguly. Nagraj Ekbote in his identical statement corroborated the narration of Ashok Gaikwad. Ravi Ganguly also in his statement, recorded on the same day, admitted to having procured the seized gold bars from one Bharat Jain and one Prakash Jain of S. Kasturchand Co. and having give ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s he got Rs. 100/- He identified photographs of Ganguly, and Ashok Gaikwad. He stated that he had done this to secure pocket money. 5. Shri Sayed stated that this statement was immediately retracted by Bharat Kumar Jain in court when he was produced by the DRI for remand. The Learned Advocate stated that Ganguly had also retracted his statement when he was produced before the Magistrate for remand. 6. I have seen the photocopy of Bharat Kumar Jain s statement recorded. The statement is in a common narration form. In the statement he had identified Ravi Ganguly as a person referred to him. He also identified the photographs of one of the carriers although he did not know the name of the carrier. In the retraction a routine claim has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not by S. Kasturchand Co. At the material time Bharat was a college student, who had done this only to augment his pocket money. In the entire transaction he earned only Rs. 100/-. Against that the prosecution against him was still under way. He had to undergo preventive detention also. And therefore he was pleading for mercy with the reduction of penalty. 9. I considered the submissions of financial constraints. The penalty imposed upon Ravi Ganguly under Gold (Control) Act is nominal i.e. Rs. 500/- and under the Customs Act it is Rs. 5,000/-. The appeals were heard on his having deposited Rs. 1,000/-. The penalty upon Bharat was Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 5,000/- respectively. He was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
