TMI Blog1986 (10) TMI 156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2-1986 and started rummaging the ship. Search of the vessel resulted in the recovery of 32 Nos. video cassette recorders, one sanyo gas table and 37 Nos. video cassette tapes from the masthouse between hatch No. 2 and 3. The total value of the goods seized was found to be Rs. 4,39,860/-. The goods were seized by the authorities as per law on the reasonable belief that they were foreign origin and they were smuggled into the country. No one also made any claim for the goods. The Master of the vessel Capt. Naushad Azad appellant herein gave a statement before the authorities on 26-2-1986 to the effect that the Chief Officer of the vessel appellant D.R. Sharma was in-charge of the masthouse and that all the keys as well as duplicate keys of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... admitting that he was having the keys for the masthouse wherefrom the goods under seizure were recovered. Regarding the Master of the ship the learned SDR urged that having regard to the fact that huge seizure of contraband goods had been effected on 6-2-1986 from the same ship belonging to the Shipping Corporation of India at Bombay, the Master should have been more vigilant and cannot deny any knowledge about the presence of the contraband goods concerned in this case. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions of the parties herein. We find that the Master of the ship himself has given a statement that the masthouse wherefrom the goods under seizure have been recovered was under the charge of Chief Officer Sharma, the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d trust in the Chief Officer and did not exercise due diligence in searching various places of the ship in the control of the Chief Officer. In this view of the matter we reduce the penalty imposed on the Master from Rs. 25,000/-to Rs. 5,000/-. So far as appellant Sharma, the Chief Officer is concerned the records reveal that he has been involved in the other seizure at Bombay when he was also the Chief Officer of the ship at the relevant time. No evidence has been brought in by appellant Sharma to even probabilise that the goods under seizure were kept in the masthouse under his charge without his knowledge. We therefore do not find any justification to modify the penalty imposed on appellant Sharma. So far as the Shipping Corporation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
