9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (1) TMI 689X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri Ganesh Karel alias Ganesh Meghraj Verma of Calcutta (now Kolkata) under Section 112 ibid. 2. The matrix of the case is that on a specific information the officers of the Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence apprehended Shri Dilip Kumar Rangalal Verms of Kolkata in room No. 208 of Hotel Hira, Bombay and recovered 40,000 US Dollars from his possession. In his statement dated 13-11-1992 Shri Dilip Kumar explained that one Shri Chandraprakash Jalan of Calcutta gave him 27 foreign marked gold bars for the purpose of carrying the same to Bombay on a consideration Rs. 2000/- plus to and fro travel charges. Accordingly, he reached Bombay by train on 10-11-1992 and checked in Hotel Hira in the assumed name of Shri U.S. Sharma as ins ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in exchange on 13-11-1992. In connection with the above dealing, as instructed, he gave Rs. 10,800/- to Shri Dinesh as his commission. 2.2 In his statement dated 16-11-1992, Shri Dinesh corroborated the statement dated 16-11-1992 of Shri Dilip Kumar and added that one Shri Rajsingh of Kathmandu had been engaged in smuggling of gold from Nepal which was being recovered by Shri Ganesh Meghraj Verma of Calcutta. He had also struck a deal with Shri Rajsingh for disposal of contraband gold received through Shri Ganesh Meghraj Verma for which Shri Rajsingh offered him Rs. 400/- per gold bar for its disposal. He further stated that on 5-11-1992 also he disposed of 14 foreign marked gold bars sent to him by Shri Ganesh through Shri Papu and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontraband gold. The Department, according to him, failed to discharge that burden cast on them. The learned Advocate refutes the observation of the Commissioner to the effect that the appellant was involved in previous transactions of similar nature and argues that not even a single case (effected by any of the law enforcing agencies either at Bombay or Calcutta) could be cited in which the appellant was involved. In any case, past conduct cannot be used against the appellant. In this connection, he relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Tejpal Jain v. Union of India reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 820 (M.P.) = 1995 (57) ECR 452 (MP) and the decision of the Tribunal in Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Calcutta v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Indian Evidence Act. 5. On a careful consideratiion of the submissions from both sides and on perusal of the evidence on record, I find that the statement dated 16-11-1992 of Shri Dilipkumar, which is admissible in evidence, is corroborated by the statement of Shri Dilipkumar. I am not inclined to accept the contention of the appellant that this is a case of no evidence. I find that there is enough circumstantial evidence to clear probability that the appellant was the person who sent Shri Dilipkumar to Bombay for disposal of the 27 contraband gold bars and it is established beyond doubt that the foreign currency involved in this case is the sale proceeds of the said gold bars. In view of this, I reject all the pleas of the le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
