Page 182 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

716 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

(Control) Act, 1947.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 4th February, 1991, on
the basis of specific information received by the Officers of Directorate of Reve-
nue Intelligence, Bombay Zonal Unit, to the effect that Respondent No. 1 was
dealing in Foreign marked gold biscuits in large scale and Respondent No. 1 re-
ceives contraband gold, its sale proceeds in the form of foreign and Indian cur-
rencies and stores the same in a room situated on the 3rd Floor of 12-V.C. Co-
operative Housing Society, 36-A, Champa Galli Cross Lane, Mumbai-20 (the said
premises), the Officers of DRI and the Officers of appellants effected a raid and
search of the said premises and respondents were found in the said premises.
After thorough search of the said premises in presence of the panchas, the offi-
cials recovered 24 marked gold biscuits each weighing 10 tolas, large quantities
of foreign currencies of various denominations of different countries equivalent
to Indian Rs. 5,88,750/- and Indian currency in the sum of Rs. 5,06,000/-. Both
respondents failed to give satisfactory explanation for the possession of those 24
marked gold biscuits and Indian and Foreign currency and also failed to produce
any documents regarding lawful possession of the same. After following due
procedure, the gold bars and currencies were taken charge of by the department
under seizure panchnama. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were brought to the office of
DRI for further interrogation and investigation. Thereafter, further investigation
was carried out by appellants after issuing summons under Section 108 of the
Customs Act, 1962. Statements of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were recorded and
those statements are at Exhibit P-4 and P-11, respectively. After completion of
investigation and after compliance of the provisions of law, complaint against
respondents was filed.
4. The Trial Court framed charges and read out the same to the ac-
cused. Both of them denied the charge. According to respondents, they were
poor villagers who had come to Mumbai in search of job and they were looking
for job. Somebody gave them the address of the said premises and respondents
went to the said premises looking for work. They found three persons in the
room and while they were making inquiries from those people about work, a
number of persons rushed into the room and disclosed their identity to be DRI
Officers. Despite respondents telling them that they were there only few minutes
before in search of work and that they may be allowed to go, the DRI Officers
told them that they cannot leave and they were under arrest. After some time,
the DRI Officers took them along with the three other persons in the room to
their office where they all were questioned about their background. Later, the
DRI Officers came and they were threatened with physical hurt and their signa-
tures have been obtained by force.
5. To drive home the charge, appellant examined two witnesses, one
A.P. Patil as PW-1 and the other D.K. Savekar as PW-2. Both of them were part of
the raiding party. In the chargesheet, eight witnesses have been cited and name
of six have been provided. Despite that only two of them have deposed. Of the
remaining four witnesses, two of them are panch witnesses, in whose presence
the gold and the Indian and Foreign currencies were recovered from the re-
spondents. Panch witnesses have not been examined and therefore, the raid has
not been independently proved. The other two witnesses are M.K. Chakraborty
and R. D’lima, who are both Customs Officers but strangely they were not asked
to step in to corroborate what the other two witnesses have stated. I would have
expected appellants to call those two persons also to give evidence in view of the
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  182