9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (8) TMI 171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. MYF 8551 searched the person of one G.A. Hava and his baggage as well as a pink coloured cloth hand bag in his possession and the cloth bag was found to contain 2105 wrist watches of foreign origin in seven paper packets, valued at Rs. 1,03,520/-. Since the said Hava was not able to satisfactorily account for the same, the watches were seized under mahazar as per law attested by witnesses. A telephone directory named as Modern Watch Company, Bangalore, was also seized. Examination of the said G.A. Hava revealed that the watches under seizure were handed over to him by the agent of the appellant herein for being delivered to the appellant. Further investigation was conducted and proceedings were instituted against the appellant which ulti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed order placing reliance on the statement of one G.A. Hava, who was a co-accused. 5. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that the watches under seizure are notified goods and the presumption under Section 123 of the Act is applicable. It was urged that the statement of Hava clearly implicates the appellant and therefore, reliance has rightly been placed on the same under the impugned order. He further submitted that the statement of the appellant himself dated 3-10-1983 is entitled to credence notwithstanding the fact that he refused to sign the same after completion. The learned DR also stressed on the conduct of the appellant prior to and at the point of seizure of the watches in question. Since the appellant denies a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said G.A. Hava to 8-6-1984 and summons were issued to Divakaran and Jayakumar. Again the hearing was adjourned at the instance of G.A. Hava and summons were issued to the aforesaid persons and the hearing was fixed for 13-6-1984 and summons were again issued to the said persons. The learned Counsel for the appellant by his letter dated 4-6-1984 waived the right of personal hearing. Therefore, after having waived the right of cross-examination, it cannot be contended that the same could be revived by the appellant at his sweet will and pleasure. Such a course is inconceivable in law and would lead to a very absurd situation in the matter of adjudication. Despite the fact that the learned Counsel for the appellant took time for production o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r a consideration of Rs. 3/- per watch. The statement also further reveals about the telephonic conversation between the appellant and Hava. It is not as if the appellant is a total stranger to the said Hava who claims to know the appellant since 1979 and had been habitually delivering consignments of watches to the appellant. Since the statement of the said Hava revealed that the watches were being taken to the appellant, the officers accompanied Hava to Bangalore and asked him to contact the appellant over the telephone No. 40467. The evidence reveals that the appellant was contacted on phone by the said Hava and Hava was directed by the appellant to go over to Murdha Steel Centre, opposite Vanivilas Hospital near Kamat Hotel at Bangalore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
