TMI Blog1964 (1) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the other two appellants and Keshavlal about November 28, 1956, in order to make the purchase. After making the purchase, Vallabhdas Liladhar came to Porbunder to the house of the other two appellants and Keshavlal and informed them of the purchase and wanted their help in the disposal of the gold. The other two appellants namely, Narandas Nagjibai and Vallabhdas Nagjibhai are brothers. Keshavlal was also the brother of these two appellants. The prosecution case further was that Narandas Nagjibhai asked Vallabhdas Nagjibhai to take the gold to Bantwa and sell it at the rate of ₹ 103/- or so per tola. Vallabhdas Nagjibhai was also instructed that in case he could not sell the gold at that rate he should contact Vallabhdas Liladhar and narandas Nagjibhai at Bantwa bus stand from where they were to go to Junagadh to dispose of the gold if no suitable buyer could be found in Bantwa. Consequently Vallabhdas Nagjibhai proceeded to Bantwa by bus on December 2, 1956 in the afternoon. In the meantime information was received by Mehta who was Inspector of Customs about the smuggling of this gold. He consequently followed the bus in which Vallabhdas Nagjibhai was travelling and intercep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Sessions Judge. The appeal was heard by the Additional Sessions Judge, Porbunder who acquitted Keshavlal. The appeal of the other three (namely, the three appellants now before us) was dismissed and their convictions and sentences were upheld. The appellants then went in revision to the High Court. The High Court rejected the revisions of Vallabhdas Liladhar and Vallabhdas Nagjibhai summarily. The revision application of Narandas Nagjibhai was admitted but was eventually dismissed. The three appellants then applied for leave to appeal to this Court which was refused. They then prayed for special leave from this Court, which was granted, and that is how the matter has come up before us. 5. Vallabhdas Liladhar, one of the appellants in Cr. A. 48 of 1960, is dead. So far therefore as he is concerned, his appeal abates. It only remains to consider the appeal of Vallabhdas Nagjibhai (Cr. A. 48) and Narandas Nagjibhai (Cr. A. 80). Before however we consider the points raised before us on behalf of the appellants we may refer to the circumstances which have been found established by all the courts and on the basis of which the conviction of the appellants has been upheld. These circu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not produced to prove them, and therefore the statements cannot be held to have been properly proved. It is however clear that the statements were not only signed by the lawyer of the appellants but also by the appellants. In their statements in court, the appellants admitted that they had signed the statements though they said that they did not know what the statements contained and they signed it on being asked by their lawyer. This part of the statements of the appellants has not been believed by the courts below and in our opinion rightly. As the statements bore the signature of the appellants which are admitted, they must be held to be proved by this admission and it was not further necessary to examine the lawyer who signed the statements along with the appellants. The contention on this head must therefore fail. 9. As to the second point, we are of opinion that Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act has no application on the facts of the present case which are on all fours with the facts in State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram, (1962) 3 SCR 338. In similar circumstances it was held by this Court in that case that customs officers are not police officers and statements made to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law even though there might be award of confiscation, penalty or increased rate of duty under the Act. Section 186 was thus meant for permitting prosecutions in addition to action under the Act in the shape of confiscation, penalty or increased rate of duty, it was never intended to act as a bar to any prosecution that might be permissible after the award of confiscation, penalty or increased rate of duty. It was merely an enabling section and not a barring section and seems to have been put in the Act ex abundanti cautela. When however clause (81) was introduced in Section 167, it became possible in some cases where goods had been confiscated and penalty inflicted under the Act by the Customs authorities to prosecute persons also under clause (81) of the Act. That however would not change the nature of the provision contained in Section 186 which was an enabling provision and not a barring provision. If the intention was to bar prosecution in consequence of the award of confiscation, penalty or increased rate of duty, the words of Section 186 would have been very different. We cannot therefore read in Section 186 a bar by implication to a prosecution under the Act simply because ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
