TMI Blog1989 (7) TMI 236X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rat, has, vide Notice to show cause dated 22-11-1985, been charged to have been concerned in acquiring, removing, possessing, transporting, keeping, concealing 7 VCRs made in Japan, which were found on 13-4-1983, from an open room near Palakhada Bus Stand. The facts leading to levelling of the aforesaid charge, as narrated in the aforesaid show cause notice are, that on 3-4-1983, at about 9.00 p.m., when the appellant with his party was on patrolling on Ketela-Ratdi Road he spotted one oil tanker bearing registration No. MTS 3406 and when signalled to stop, it did not stop; hence it was chased, and was ultimately found abandoned near Ratdi Village. Under the instructions from the appellant P.S.I., the same was brought to Bagdavar Police Sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f them boarded the tanker. After the tanker proceeded little further, it was made to stop, and he was asked to go to nearby place to ascertain whether appellant P.S.I. had come, and as such he went and when he returned, he saw 8 to 9 bundles lying scattered near the tanker wrapped in jute cloth. He was then asked by constable Keshuvbhai to take the tanker to the Police Station. He is reported to have stated that constable Keshavbhai at that time told him that the goods belonged to P.S.I. Jadeja, the appellant here and that he should not talk about this to any one. In his statement recorded, also on 14-4-1983, Meraman Ala Mer, is reported to have stated that about ten days back, while he was in his farm, constable Jivabhai came and asked him ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llector passed the impugned order. Two constables have also been ordered to pay penalty of Rs. 500/- each under the same provision. 3. Mr. D.H. Shah, the learned advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the appellant has been wrongly implicated and actually it was he who seized the contraband goods and handed over them to the Police. Mr. Shah further submitted that except the bare words of Shantigar and Meraman, there is absolutely no evidence, and what both of them are reported to have stated implicating the appellant, is based on what they were reportedly told by constable Jivabhai. He pointed out that constable Jivabhai s statement is also recorded by the department, when he has clearly denied to have ever told Sha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concerned by the independent and disinterested persons, who have no reason to falsely implicate the appellant and there should be no reason why they should be disbelieved. He also submitted that both of them have corroborated each other. Mr. Mondal submitted that though Meraman has stood penalised under Section 112 of the Customs Act, he is implicated only for his abatement in concealment of the said contraband goods, but that cannot make Meraman an incredible witness. Explaining the behaviour of the appellant, in handing over the said VCR to the customs officers, Mr. Mondal submitted that, apprehending that some others had come to know about his involvement in the said smuggled goods, the appellant subsequently thought it safe to surrender ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... maintain as per the law. Again, it was this appellant who produced both Shantigar Bawaji and Meraman Ala before the customs officers, after he himself recorded their statements. The statements by both these persons, recorded by the customs officers, are subsequent to the seizure of seven VCRs. 7. There is nothing brought on record to show that the customs officers had commenced further investigation in the matter on seizure of 3 VCRs on 4-4-1983, and has traced out Shantigar and/or Meraman or any other person in connection with the said seizure at any time prior to 13-4-1983, or that their intelligence section had gathered any information that there were more VCR brought in the said tanker, which had been removed prior to the surrender of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made such a statement also testifies to the same. Here, however, such corroborative value also cannot be attributed to the same, as constable Jivabhai denies to have ever said so to these persons. 12. Basing of any conclusion on such statements, is, therefore, contrary to the established principles of law and cannot be sustained. 13. It may also be noted that if the goods really belonged to the appellant there could have been no reason for him to himself take the initiative and seize the same under a regular panchnama, by rushing to the spot in the very early hours of the morning, and also make entries in Police Station Diary even prior to actual seizures. Further, it was constable Jivabhai who initially reported the finding of seven V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
