On the question of seizure of gold from the accused, the prosecution relied on the testimony of Lal Singh himself.
The High Court has accepted Lal Singhs testimony, but unfortunately the judgment does number indicate that the learned judges of the High Court took into companysideration this fact that the search witnesses had number been examined.
which he claimed to have prepared at the time of the seizure was marked Exh.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 4, 1962 of the Rajasthan High Court in D. D. Criminal Appeal No.
10,000 was imposed on the appellant.
By an order of the Collector of Customs, New Delhi, dated July 19,1957, this gold was companyfiscated and a fine of Rs.
All the ingredients of the offence, according to the High Court, had been proved, and therefore, the accused was companyvicted and sentenced as mentioned above.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS GUPTA J. This appeal by special leave is against a companyviction and sentence under s. 167 81 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878.
August 29, 1963.
This document mentions the names of three persons as search witnesses.
P.M. 1 32.
It was also of the opinion that Lal Singh had authority to seize the gold at the place where the seizure was made, and that s. 178 A of the Sea Customs Act applied.
None of these was examined by the prosecution.
Criminal proceedings were afterwards instituted against the appellant on the allegation that he had companymitted an offence under s. 167 81 of the Sea Customs Act.
Lal Singh gave a detailed account as to how he followed the accused into the train at Luni station and in the running train companyducted the search of his person in the presence of witnesses and recovered from his possession from a pouli tied beneath his trousers the gold identified in companyrt as Ex.
Lal Singh seized the gold after preparing a seizure list in the presence of witnesses and later produced the appellant along with the gold before the Superintendent, Land Customs, Barmer.
The defence examined a Pukh Raj who gave his fathers name as Basti Mal and who was resident of Ajit, and stated that he was the only Pukh Raj in that village.
The High Court came to companytrary findings on all these points.
The appellant was acquitted by the trial companyrt, but on appeal by the State of Rajasthan, the Rajasthan High Court set aside the order of acquittal and companyvicted the appellant under s. 167 81 of the Sea Customs Act, and sentenced him to rigorous unprisonment for one year.
The prosecution claimed that under s. 178 A of the Sea Customs Act, the burden of proving that gold was number smuggled lay on the accused.
In the opinion of the High Court, the accused had failed to prove that the gold was number smuggled and that under the provisions of s. 178 A as also on the evidence in the case, the gold had been established to be smuggled gold.
In the reasonable belief that these were smuggled goods, Lal Singh seized the gold.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The third name mentioned in Exh.
The prosecution case was that on receipt of some information that gold smuggled from Pakistan was being carried, Lal Singh, Sub Inspector of the Check post of Barmer, followed the appellant into a railway train at Luni railway station, and in the running train between the stations of Kerla and Pali, searched appellants person and found that he was carrying 286 tolas of gold in a pouli under his trousers.
On the evidence adduced by the prosecution, he was number companyvinced that it was smuggled gold.
R. Khanna and B. R. G. K. Achar for P. D. Menon, for the respondent.
Accordingly, he acquitted the accused.
Even apart from that, the prosecution claimed, it was clear that the gold had been smuggled.
It was alleged that the appellant had carried the gold knowingly with intent to evade the regulations prohibiting the import of gold Into India.
The main defence of the accused, who pleaded number guilty, was that numbergold was recovered from him.
The gold that was seized companysisted of six blocks bearing marks 999, N. M. Rothschild Sons, 22 bars bearing marks 999, 3 small pieces of gold and one pair of murkies.
It held that the evidence of Lal Singh as regards the seizure should be believed and that the seizure of the gold from the accused had been proved satisfactorily.
152 of 1962.
K. Kapur, S. Murthy, B. N. Kirpal and K. K. lain, for the appellant.
P. 3 is Pukh Raj son of Awasthi Mal, aged about 22 years, resident of Ajit.
505 of 1961.
The learned Magistrate gave this failure of the prosecution to examine the witnesses as the main reason for his inability to accept Lal Singhs testimony.
The seizure Memo.
