9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (8) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... framing charge passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Alibag. 3.Mr. Satpute appearing for the respondent No. 2 raised a preliminary objection to the tenability of the petition on the ground that the Order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate directing the framing of charge was an interlocutory order against which no appeal nor revision was provided. However, the petitioner challenged the said order by filing a revision before the Sessions Judge, Alibag, and on dismissal of the said revision, the petitioner has come to this Court by filing this petition, which, in fact a second revision and even if the petition is termed as petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the same is not maintainable. Mr. Satpute also relied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is alleged by the complainant - customs that on the date of the raid it was this petitioner who was the owner of the vessel. 5.According to Mr. Baphna even prima facie this contention is required to be rejected because even though the raid is dated 24-10-1982 the petitioner had, three weeks before the raid, transferred the ownership of the vessel to one Dalip Singh and that the change of ownership was intimated to the customs department and necessary change in the registration of the vessel was made by the customs department. Further, according to the petitioner this factum of change of the ownership is accepted and recognised by the customs and also by CEGAT in its order, dated 18-4-1995. My attention in this respect was invited to p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s also true that CEGAT has taken into consideration that the transfer of vessel and the change in the name of the vessel was carried out in the records of the customs department on 30-9-1982 much prior to the interception of the vessel i.e. prior to 24/25-10-1982 and also the further observation that this indicated that the appellant was not in control of the vessel. However, there is one most important aspect to this case on account of which neither the judgment or observations of the CEGAT nor the judgment of the Delhi High Court can be made applicable to the facts of the present case and in favour of the petitioner, and that aspect is that firstly this is a criminal prosecution and secondly statement of the petitioner has been recorded b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble will not be able to recognise him." 8.The aforesaid statement of the petitioner creates prima facie strong suspicion about the so-called bona fide transfer of the vessel by him in the name of Dalip Singh. Admittedly, the customs officials could not trace the said Dalip Singh. It is therefore not known whether Dalip Singh is really in existence or not or he is a fictitious person. The ignorance pleaded by the petitioner in the aforesaid statement that he will not be able to recognise Dalip Singh now, is also suspicious. The petitioner is now contending that because of old age and cataract trouble he is not in a position to recognise or identify Dalip Singh. If this was so, the petitioner does not say that he could not carry on business ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
