9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (1) TMI 198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se : In the early hours of August 9, 1969, the respondent alighted from the Kerala Express at the Trichur Railway Station with a steel trunk in his hand. C. C. Mathan, Inspector of Central Excise, Special Customs, Preventive, Trichur (P.W. 1), who was on patrol duty at the Railway Station, suspected that the respondent was carrying contraband goods and on coming to know from the ticket examiner that the respondent had arrived from Bombay, he asked the respondent to hand over the steel trunk which he was carrying. When C. C. Mathan (P.W.1) opened and searched the steel trunk, he found in it 28 gold bars with foreign markings. The respondent was arrested by C.C. Mathan (P.W. 1) and when questioned by P.W. 1, the respondent did not produce any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s from the respondent at the Trichur Railway Station on August 9, 1969, under the mahazar (Ex. P-l). He also produced Ex. P-2, which contained the statement made by the respondent before the Special Customs, Preventive Circle, Superintendent, Kozhikode, in which he had admitted that 28 gold bars with foreign markings had been seized from him under a mahazar and that the said 28 gold bars had not been legally imported into India. C. C. Mathau (P. W. 1) stated that he was present before the Special Customs, Preventive Circle, Superintendent, Kozhikode, when Ex. P-2 was recorded and that the said statement contained the signatures of the respondent and of the Superintendent who had recorded it. K. Subramonian (P.W. 2), who was working as a tic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s having foreign marks?" the respondent stated: " It is true that gold was recovered from my box. It was not mine. It was handed over to me by the person called Maramu asking me to give it in his house. I had no knowledge that it was gold. " The learned District Magistrate found that the prosecution had established that the respondent had committed an offence under section 135(b) of the Customs Act and an offence under section 85(ii) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, and convicted him of those offences. The respondent was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500 for the offence under section 135(b) of the Customs Act and in default of payment of fine to undergo, simple imprisonment for six months. No separate sentence was, however, awarded for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impression that he was a competent person to certify that what were seized from the respondent were gold bars and that in the absence of any training or qualification to the credit of V.M. Velayudhan (P.W. 3), it would be unsafe to rely on his evidence and conclude that what was seized from the respondent was gold. So far as Ex. P-2 was concerned, the learned judge was of the opinion that as the said statement had not been specifically put to the respondent under section 342 of the Cr. PC and as the person who had recorded it had not been examined, no importance could be given to it. In so far as the answer given by the respondent to the question put by the court under section 342 of the Cr. PC, which is set out above, is concerned, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efinite or a mere possible doubt, is not a reasonable doubt. Neither is a desire for more evidence of guilt, a capricious doubt or misgiving suggested by an ingenious counsel or arising from a merciful disposition or kindly feeling towards a prisoner, or from sympathy for him or his family ". (See Woodroffee & Ameer Ali's Law of Evidence, 13th Edn., Vol. I, pp. 203-204). On a reading of the evidence of C. C. Mathan (P.W. 1), V. M. Velayudhan (P. W. 3) and the statement of the respondent under section 342 of the Cr. PC, which is referred to above, we are of the view that the doubt which the learned judge of the High Court entertained about the nature of the metallic bars which were seized from the respondent under Ex. 1 cannot be considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d against him on the ground that it would result in the splitting up of the statement which was on the whole exculpatory. Even without the aid of the statement made by the respondent before the Special Customs Preventive Circle Superintendent, Ex. P-2, it w possible to hold in this case that the metallic bars seized from the respondent under Ex P-1 were gold bars in view of the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 and the statement of the respondent before the court. The High Court was in error in coming to the conclusion that gold had not been seized from the respondent by P.W. 1 as per Ex. P-l at the Trichur Railway Station. These gold bars were seized by P.W. 1 in the reasonable belief that they were smuggled goods. [Under section 123 of the Cu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
