9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (2) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Presidency Magistrate under various sections of the Customs Act as also Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate convicted the respondents under Sections 135(a) and (b) of the Customs Act read with Section 120B I.P.C. and also under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and sentenced respondent No. 1(A-1), P.K. Pathak to rigorous imprisonment for three years under Sections 135(a) and (b) of the Customs Act and for one year under Section 120B, I.P.C. and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act. He further directed that the sentences would run concurrently. Respondent No. 2(A-5), Shir Mdhukar Keshav Waity, was also convicted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in material particulars by some other evidence. The learned Magistrate found that the search witnesses, P.Ws. 1, 2, 4 and 9, fully corroborated the statements made by the respondents in their confessions. Apart from the recovery of the smuggled articles at the instance of the respondents, the circumstances under which respondent No. 1(A-1) was arrested, at the instance of A-5, from a bus stand which were proved by P.W. 9, was also relied upon by the learned Magistrate in holding that the case against the respondents stood proved. 7. The High Court disagreed with the view of the learned Magistrate and found that as no independent witness or witnesses from the locality were taken by the Customs authorities to witness the search, no relian ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oms authorities have to maintain top secrecy lest recovery should prove abortive by reason of any leakage. Further-more, smuggled goods, are often kept in lonely places which may or not have habitation. In the instant case, we find that while respondent No. 2(A-5) got the article recovered from a toney at the seashore, respondent No. 1(A-1) got the articles recovered from an island which had to be reached through a mechanised vessel, the journey taking an hour and a half. The articles were found concealed in the bushes growing on the island. In these circumstances, it would neither be practical nor reasonable to expect any person of the locality to witness the search. The fact that P.W. 9 was approached by the police and the Customs authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ange of Rs. 15 lakhs. 9. Merely because P.Ws. 2 and 4 were Customs Officers their evidence could not be rejected outright because they were doubtless competent officers to prove the search and the recoveries. Thus, we are unable to agree with the view of the High Court that in the instant case, the confessions of the respondents were not corroborated by the recoveries as proved by the search lists and the witnesses to the same. 10. Having considered the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 4 and 9, we are satisfied that the confessional statements made by the respondents before the Customs Officers (which are undoubtedly admissible in evidence) were fully corroborated by the witnesses mentioned above. 11. On an overall consideration of the evidence, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
