9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (7) TMI 114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ought with him a car under a carnet procedure. The car was to be sent back within a specified time. On 28-2-1980 the respondent brought the car from Pune to Bombay for exporting it to Dubai. On the same day the car was checked for carnet procedure by Nivrutti Sakharam Kardak (P.W. 5) Customs Officer but nothing incriminating was found. After the car was checked, the key was handed over to the cargo supervisor. It was then loaded on the ship M. V. Noorjehan of Moghul Lines on 1-3-1980. Gaonkar (P.W. 1) Preventive Officer of Customs Bombay along with other officers went to the ship and on search they found 162 pieces of silver weighing about 51 Kg. valued at Rs. 1,63,710/- concealed in the petrol tank of the car. The key of the car was given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... halingam Ramkrishnan (P.W. 6) employee of the Carting Agent. The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate held that the retracted confessional statements of the respondent-accused are not corroborated by an independent evidence and it would not be safe to base conviction on retracted confessional alone without independent corroboration. The prosecution failed to prove that the respondent had concealed silver bars in the petrol tank of the car and attempted to export silver. He also held that there was no evidence except the retracted confessional statements against accused No. 2. Consequently, both the accused were acquitted. However, in this appeal the acquittal of respondent is challenged. 4. There is no serious dispute that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Mr. Gaonkar he admitted that they have come across many cases wherein crew members of the ship are involved in the smuggling of silver. They had detected many smuggling cases in which M.V. Noorjehan ship of Moghul Lines was involved. This evidence does not rule out the probability of silver bars being planted after the car was loaded on the ship. It is not the prosecution case that the respondent had access to the car after it was loaded on the ship and was in custody of the officers of the ship. Admittedly at that point of time, respondent had no concern with the car. 5. There is no direct evidence to show that the appellant1 had kept silver bars in the petrol tank of his car with an object to export it. The evidence is circumstantial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
