TMI Blog1978 (9) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M. Nizar, Intelligence Officer, Revenue Intelligence, Madras, and other officers. On the pillion was the revision petitioner. The officers felt suspicious as the revision petitioner and the other person who was driving the scooter found it difficult to push the scooter as it was very heavy. PWs. 1 and 2 asked them the reason for the difficulty in pushing the scooter when both the revision petitioner and the other person confessed that they were carrying bars of gold. P.W. 4, Sadiq a mechanic, who was sent for by P.Ws 1 and 2, opened the petrol tank of the scooter in the presence of PW 5, village munsif and PWs 1 and 2 found five cloth bags each containing 100 bars of gold of foreign origin with the markings 'Johnson Mzthey-9990 London' conc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... merely accompanied the first accused Dhanapal, the revision petitioner in Cr. 1 R.C. No. 840 of 1975, and that he did not know that gold bars were kept concealed in the scooter and that he was beaten by the Customs Officers to give a statement. 4. There are no merits in this petition. The evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 very clearly show that the scooter was intercepted. The evidence of PW 1 would clearly show that the revision petitioner and the other person driving the scooter told him that they were carrying gold and the gold bars concealed under the petrol tank were recovered under a mahazar, Ex. P.1. PW 2, S.M. Nizar, another officer who was present at the time of the seizure corroborated the evidence of PW 1. PW 4, Sadiq, a mechanic, spo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods are seized in the reasonable belief that they were smuggled and if the accused fails to show that such goods are of indigenous origin, an inference that such goods are smuggled would clearly arise in favour of the prosecution. Ex. P.2 very clearly shows that the revision petitioner had the necessary knowledge that the gold was smuggled gold and therefore liable for confiscation. I earlier pointed out that the revision petitioner was not in possession of the permit or licence for his possession of gold of foreign origin. There is, therefore, clear proof that the gold is smuggled gold. In Vallabhdas Liladhar v. Asst. Collector of Customs, AIR 1965 S.C. 481, the Supreme Court has observed as follows :- "Once it is proved that the gold is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
