Page 138 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

528 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

the offences punishable under Section 135(1)(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, read
with Section 67 of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, read with Section 11 of
the Customs Act, read with Section 77 of the Customs Act, 1962, read with Sec-
tion 135(1)(b)(i), read with Section 5A of the Imports and Exports (Control) [Act]
1947. The Learned Magistrate had sentenced the accused for various terms of
rigorous imprisonment and fine.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 22-1-1987, on infor-
mation received, the Customs officers went to Hay Bunder in Mumbai port and
noticed a country craft, which was anchored there and boarded the said country
craft. The name of the country craft is M.V. Mamun (the said vessel). There were
20 crew members which include the accused as well. Accused No. 1 was the
Tandel of the said vessel. The officers had also taken with them two panch wit-
nesses and in the presence of those panch witnesses, searched the vessel. During
the search, the officers found that there were cavities in the planks at different
places in the vessel and there were 14 cloth belts and 8 brown paper packets con-
cealed in those cavities and when those 14 cloth belts and 8 brown paper packets
were opened, it contained 750 gold bars with foreign markings. Each gold bar
was weighing 10 tolas and the total value of the gold on that date was approxi-
mately Rs. 2,17,75,050/- . None of the crew including the accused could account
for importing or possession of the gold, as importation of gold was banned at
that time. Officers seized all the gold found on the said vessel under a panch-
nama in the reasonable belief that it was smuggled and liable to be confiscated.
The said vessel had come from Dubai and was in Indian Waters. She was also
carrying wet dates and almonds.
4. It is also the case of prosecution that on 16-2-1987, the officers once
again went on board the said vessel and took search again and found T.V. set,
V.C.R.s , Air Conditioners, Dinner sets, Gas Table etc., all of foreign origin, val-
ued at Rs. 88,500/- approximately (the contraband goods). The officers found
these goods were not listed in the import general manifest filed by the person in
charge of the conveyance of the vessel under Section 30 of the Customs Act, nor
were these goods mentioned in the personal property list of the vessel. As there
were no legal documents for import of those goods, those goods were also seized
under a panchnama in the reasonable belief that they were smuggled and liable
to confiscation.
5. On 23-1-1987 the statement of Accused No. 1 was recorded. The
statement is recorded in English but it is stated that it was read over to Accused
No. 1, in Hindustani who accepted it and signed it. Further statement of Accused
No. 1 was recorded in a similar fashion, i.e., asking questions in Hindi, answer-
ing in Hindi, but written in English and read over to Accused No. 1, who has
signed it. The third statement of accused No. 1 was recorded on 31-1-1987 and all
these statements, of course have an endorsement that it has been read over and
explained in Hindi to accused No. 1, who has accepted it and signed it. Similarly,
statement of Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5 was recorded on 23-1-1987, 24-1-1987 and
24-1-1987, respectively.
6. According to prosecution, all statements were voluntary and correct-
ly recorded without use of any force or inducement. Three samples of gold bars
were sent to the Government Mint for analysis and remaining gold bars were
also handed over to the Mint. There is nothing on record to indicate that other
than three samples, the rest were not gold and, therefore, I can safely proceed on
the basis that all 750 bars were of gold weighing 10 tolas each.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  138