9911796707
TMI Blog1964 (7) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he prosecution were that the respondent Jiban Hiranand Hira had gone to a country outside India and came back by an aircraft that reached Dum Dum airport on 2nd May, 1961. At that airport he declared two unaccompanied baggages that would be arriving at the port of Calcutta by Sea within two months. Accordingly a landing certificate was issued to him on that date. On 24th July, 1961 the two baggages arrived in Calcutta by S.S. Eastern Moon and those two baggages were kept in the look-fast of the Calcutta Port Commissioners. On 24th July, 1961 the accused respondent accompanied by his Clearing Agent came to the Customs House and presented the baggage declaration form in which he had declared that the consignment of the two baggages contained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 23(1A) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act. The learned Presidency Magistrate in consideration of the evidence adduced before him held that neither the items of evidence nor their totality had established to his satisfaction that the accused "had any previous knowledge about the offending contents of the case, Ext. II or was directly concerned with the import of the same into India." Upon that finding the learned Presidency Magistrate acquitted the accused giving him benefit of doubt. The present appeal is against that order of acquittal. The learned Advocate for the appellant Mr. Ghose has argued that the learned Presidency Magistrate was in error in thinking that prosecution ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en both the baggages were directed to be opened he did not attend the appraisement on the jetty, (4) a telegram had been delivered at the flat which is the residence of the accused, the language of which was capable of being interpreted as an instruction to have a particular package of the two packages opened for appraisement, (5) only one of the two packages contained the contraband articles and that package was the one other than the package that had been intended in the telegram exhibit 13. From these circumstances the learned Advocate for the appellant wanted to draw inference of guilty against the accused. Having considered the powerful arguments advanced by Mr. Ghose however it appears to me that all those circumstances taken together ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to him had arrived in the port of Calcutta, would be sufficient to establish that the accused had brought the contraband articles in India in contravention of Section 23(1A) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act. I am unable to accept this argument of Mr. Ghose because although the evidence shows that the articles were brought into India on his accounts as consignee, the evidence does not at all establish that the articles had been brought into India by the accused either directly or indirectly. I therefore hold that the order of acquittal passed by the learned Presidency Magistrate has been the correct order in the case although his reason for making that order of acquittal was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
