TMI Blog1992 (3) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods are seized. The onus is on him to show that the goods are not smuggled that is, not of foreign origin on which duty is not paid. The onus is not on the prosecution to show that the goods are not of Indian origin. Appeal dismissed. - 126 of 1959 - - - Dated:- 6-3-1992 - J.L. Kapur, P.B. Gajendragadkar and T.L. Venkatarama Aiyar, JJ. [Judgment per : J.L. Kapur, J.]. - This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of the High Court of the Punjab and raises the constitutionality of S. 178A of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 (Act 8 of 1878) which has been held by this Court to be constitutional in the Collector of Customs, Madras v. N. Sampathu Chetty, 1962-1 SCJ 68 = AIR 1962 SC 316. 2. At the time of arguments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the gold bars which were taken from an attache case left by a stranger under the seat where he (the appellant) was sitting. The Additional District Magistrate held the offence to be proved and convicted the appellant of the offence and sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment. An appeal to the Sessions Judge resulted in the reduction of the sentence to 8 months' rigorous imprisonment. On Revision to the High Court the sentence was reduced to six months' rigorous imprisonment. The appellant has come in appeal by special leave. 5. The trial Court accepted the testimony of the Customs Officials and held that the defence of the appellant was false and that the gold worth about Rs. 14,000 was found in his possession. The learned Sess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf. (3) Every notification issued under sub-sec. (2) shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament, as soon as may be, after it is issued." Two Customs Officers appeared as witnesses, Inspector Satnam Singh and Deputy Superintendent A.N. Kapur; the former is an Inspector of Land Customs and the latter a Deputy Superintendent of Customs. There is nothing to indicate in their cross-examination that the officers did not have a resonable belief that the goods were smuggled goods and the question that the officers did not have reasonable belief is not suggested either from the cross-examination of these witnesses or from the findings of the Courts below. Even in his statement of case i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
