Page 140 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

818 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

CASES CITED
Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka — 2007 (4) SCC 415 — Relied on ............................................... [Para 21]
Customs v. Mohammad Bagour — 2012 (275) E.L.T. 513 (Del.) — Relied on ................................. [Para 13]
Malki Singh v. Suresh Kumar Himatlal Parmar — 2020 (371) E.L.T. 642 (Bom.) — Relied on .... [Para 16]
Ramesh Chandra v. State of West Bengal — 1999 (110) E.L.T. 324 (S.C.) — Relied on ................. [Para 15]
State of Maharashtra v. Harshad Vaherbhai Patel — 2012 (1) Bom.C.R. (Cri) 500 — Relied on .. [Para 16]
State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh — 1999 (6) SCC 172 — Relied on .................................................... [Para 10]
State of Rajasthan v. Parmanand — (2014) 85 ACC 662 — Relied on ................................................. [Para 9]
Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat — (2011) 1 SCC 609 — Relied on ........................ [Para 12]
Yusuf Suleman v. V.M. Doshi — 2001 (4) Mh.L.J. 76 — Relied on ........................................... [Paras 5, 9, 10]
REPRESENTED BY : Ms. Anuradha A. Mane, Special PP, for the
Appellant.
Ms. Spenta Havewala, Amicus Curaie, for the
Respondent.
[Judgment (Oral)]. - This is a case where the customs authorities are im-
pugning an order of acquittal dated 27-3-2002 passed by the Learned Chief Met-
ropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai acquitting respondent No. 1, of offence
under various provisions of Customs Act, 1962 and Imports and Exports (Con-
trol) Act, 1947.
2. At the outset, I have to note that since respondent No. 1 is not repre-
sented, Ms. Spenta Havewala, Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curaie. I have
to note Ms. Havewala was of immense assistance.
3. It is the prosecution’s case that on 2-1-1990, on the basis of specific
information that respondent No. 1 accused, who was likely to carry contraband
gold on his person, officers of appellant kept watch at Panchayatwadi Street,
Mumbai. Pursuant thereto, the officers of appellant apprehended respondent No.
1 and on his personal search, the officers recovered 9 pieces of gold weighing
504.900 gms approximately. Respondent No. 1 admitted that the said 9 pieces of
gold were made from smuggled foreign marked gold biscuits with the intention
of removing foreign marking. Since respondent No. 1 could not produce any re-
ceipt or document for possession of the said 9 pieces of gold, all those 9 pieces of
gold were seized in the reasonable belief that the same were made of smuggled
foreign marked biscuits and liable for confiscation under the provisions of Cus-
toms Act, 1962.
4. During the course of investigation, residential premises of respond-
ent No. 1 at 302, Madhupuri Building, Baptista Road, Vile Parle (W), (residence)
was searched and strips and corners of contraband gold of different shapes and
sizes numbering 25 pieces weighing 60.350 gms were seized in the reasonable
belief that the same were converted from smuggled foreign marked gold biscuits.
During further investigation, statement of respondent No. 1 was record-
ed, when he admitted possession of contraband gold prepared or manufactured
from smuggled gold and that it was supplied to him by one Ajmuddin Khan @
Moinu, whose business was to convert foreign marked gold biscuits into strips of
pieces and in the process to remove the foreign markings. On 7-12-1990, the
seized property was sent to India Government Mint, Mumbai. After completion
of investigation, necessary sanction for prosecution of accused was sought and
thereafter complaint under Section 135 of Customs Act and under Section 5 of
Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, was filed on 25-7-1996.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  140