9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (2) TMI 386X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osed penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on the appellant and also on Shri Mahendra of equal amount (who is not appellant before me). 2. On 26-4-1993 the Police Officers of Ramsar intercepted roadways bus plying between Barmer and Sundra and carried out checking of the passangers. The appellant who was also travelling in that bus, on checking, was found in possession of Indian currency of Rs. 3,51,100/-. He was detained by the Police along with money and thereafter handed over to the Customs Officers, Barmer. The appellant in his voluntary statement admitted that the money recovered from him was the sale proceeds of the silver weighing 2,200 to 2,300 tolas. Accordingly, he was served with a show cause notice for the confiscation of the currency and f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntity, the silver was smuggled from Pakistan, remains undisclosed in the show cause notice. The sole reliance has been placed by the Department on the confessional statement of the appellant wherein he allegedly stated that the money recovered from him was the sale proceeds of the smuggled silver. He also named two persons namely Mahendra and Soni, to whom he allegedly sold the smuggled silver. But Mahindra was found to be non-existent person while Soni did not corroborate the statement of the appellant. No silver was recovered from the possession of the appellant also along with the money at the time of checking or later on from his residential house or any other premises, during investigation. Therefore, for want of any corroboration from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, no presumption that the money recovered from the appellant was the sale proceeds of that smuggled silver, could be legally drawn by the authorities below. They have raised wrong presumptions and assumptions against the appellant. Surmises and conjuctures as raised by the authorities below could not take place of any legal proof. Mere inability on the part of the appellant to explain the possession of the money, also could not be made basis for raising presumption that the money was the sale proceeds of the smuggled silver. No recovery of the silver from the appellant or from any other person to whom he allegedly sold, had taken place. Therefore, in my view, the money recovered from the appellant could not be legally seized under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
