9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 495X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted that the petitioner was apprehended on 17-7-2018 and was found in possession of foreign currency with Indian currency value of Rupees thirty five lacs fifty thousand and twenty six. Petitioner was also found in possession of Indian currency to the tune of Rupees thirty seven thousand six hundred and fifty. Since, the total currency carried by the petitioner was less than Rupees fifty lacs, petitioner could be punished for maximum term of three years. Hence, the offence could be said to be a bailable one. Arpit Jain, son of the petitioner, was apprehended on 13-11-2017 and was found in possession of foreign currency with Indian currency value of Rupees ninety six lacs twenty four thousand and twelve. In this regard, son of the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ggesting that by necessary implication the power to file a charge sheet flows from some of the powers which have already been discussed under the new Act and that a customs officer is entitled to exercise even this power. It is difficult and indeed it would be contrary to all rules of interpretation to spell out any such special power from any of the provisions contained in the new Act. In this view of the matter even though under the new Act a customs officer has been invested with many powers which were not to be found in the provisions of the old Act, he cannot be regarded as a police officer within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. In two recent decisions of this Court in which the judgments were delivered only on October 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Act. The material can certainly be used to connect the petitioner in the contravention inasmuch as Mr. Dudani's statement clearly inculpates not only himself but also the petitioner. It can, therefore, be used as substantive evidence connecting the petitioner with the contravention by exporting foreign currency out of India. Therefore, we do not think that there is any illegality in the order of confisaction of foreign currency and imposition of penalty. There is no ground warranting reduction of fine. The special leave petition is dismissed accordingly." 5. Learned Counsel has next placed reliance on the decision given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Guiarat v. Shri Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal & Anr., 1987 (11) ECR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Application No. 13466/2014 titled as Najibullah & Anr. v. Union of India decided on 5-1-2015. 7. In the present case, admittedly, petitioner was arrested on 17-7-2018 at the Jaipur International Airport. Petitioner was found in possession of foreign currency with Indian currency value to the tune of Rupees thirty five lacs fifty thousand and twenty six. Son of the petitioner was arrested in November, 2017 and was found in possession of foreign currency with Indian currency value to the tune of Rupees ninety six lacs twenty four thousand and twelve. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he is not an accused along with his son in the case registered against the son of the petitioner in November, 2017. Arpit Jain son of the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
