9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (6) TMI 195X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vestigation of the same, the authorities searched the house of one Mohamed Ibrahim at Nagore on 28-12-1981 and recovered certain goods of foreign origin and sale proceeds of contraband goods. It is in the course of a follow up action and further investigation, the authorities seized a sum of ₹ 31,000/- from the appellant on 29-12-1981 at about 12 noon as representing the sale proceeds of contraband goods, under mahazar attested by witnesses, besides the appellant himself. The appellant was examined by the authorities on 29-12-1981 itself when be gave a statement that the sum of ₹ 31,000/- under seizure was entrusted to him by one Kattai Mani alias Subramani of Nagapattinam and one Kattai Maraicar alias Najumudeen of Nagapattinam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e can be placed on the mahazar and the statement of the appellant. Finally the learned counsel submitted that he was under a mis-apprehension that the adjudicating authority was to decide the case in his favour and therefore, waived the right of cross-examination of other witnesses he had sought for and also did not fully cross-examine witness Malim referred to supra and prayed in the circumstances for remand of the appeal for re-adjudication. 4. The learned Senior Departmental Representative submitted that the appellant s statement recorded by the authorities on 29-12-1981 is inculpatory in nature and has not been retracted within a reasonable time. Further, the appellant has not offered any explanation for the belated retraction. He fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such circumstances, I do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that unless the appellant himself had effected the sales of contraband goods and the money was seized from his person, the same would not be liable for confiscation. The contention of the learned counsel that in view of the subsequent retraction on 22-1-1982, the inculpatory statement recorded from the appellant on 29-12-1981 would not have evidentiary value is opposed to judicial pronouncements of various courts. If really, as is now contended, the statement had been coerced or extorted from and out of the appellant it does not stand to reason as to why the appellant, as a normal human being, did not react to such a situation and resile a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s does not have any bearing on or relevance to the sum of ₹ 31,000/-, under seizure. If really the appellant had remitted ₹ 30,000/- representing the sale proceeds of his own kailies to Gibs Traders, Madras, it passes one s comprehension as to how he was again able to mobilise a sum of ₹ 31,000/- under seizure and hand it over to the authorities as evidenced by the mahazar. To a query from the Bench in this regard, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant mobilised the sum of ₹ 31.000/- by borrowing it from various persons. Unfortunately, the appellant has not substantiated the same and proved by giving the names of persons from whom he borrowed the money and by examining them as his witness ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
