TMI Blog1992 (7) TMI 89X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods. No compunction in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has established its case. Hence we are unable to agree with the reasons given by the High Court. In the result we set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore the judgment of the trial court as confirmed by the appellate court so far as the conviction is concerned. Having regard to the above submission to the question of sentence that the learned counsel appearing for the respondents after stating that the offence took place in 1973; that both the respondents have suffered the imprisonment for some period and that the value of the contrabands seized from the 1st respondent was at ₹ 2,590/- and the value of the wrist watches seized from the 2nd respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were liable for confiscation under the Customs Act and thereby they committed an offence punishable under S. 135 of the Customs Act. Both the trial court as well as the appellate court, on the evaluation of the evidence, found that both the respondents had committed the offence within the mischief of S. 135 of the Customs Act but the learned single Judge of the High Court for the reasons given in his judgment has found thus : "I have already pointed out that the failure of the prosecution to prove that the wrist watches in question were smuggled goods and absence of presumption under S. 123 of the Customs Act prevents me from interfering incriminating knowledge or belief as required by S. 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the part of two ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y this Court. S. 123 of the Act does not admit of any other construction. Whether or not the officer concerned had entertained reasonable belief under the circumstances is not a matter which can be placed under legal microscope, with an over-indulgent eye which sees no evil anywhere within the range of its eyesight. The circumstances have to be viewed from the experienced eye of the officer who is well equipped to interpret the suspicious circumstances and to form a reasonable belief in the light of the said circumstances......" 4.The above proposition of law was reiterated by this Court in Indru Ramchand Bharvani v. Union of India, 1992 (59) E.L.T. 201 (SC) = (1988) 4 SCC 1, See also Assistant Collector of Customs v. Mohanlal Shankarlal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
