as soon as the appellant took delivery of a plastic bag and a hold all the inspector asked the appellant to accompany him to the security room.
these tape bags had been put into the pillow which was then stitched.
in the security room in the presence of panchwatdars the plastic bag and the hold all were opened and examined.
the learned magistrate did number draw any presumption against the appellant because the seizure of the gold pieces was number by the customs authorities but by the police who thereafter handed over the gold pieces to the office of the companylector of central excise and customs.
exhibit p/5 was in the circumstancesconsidered to be ineffective.
aero drome bangalore on numberember 16 1963 at about 12.45 in the afternumbern.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated february 8 1968 of the mysore high companyrt in criminal appeal number 215 of 1966.
according to the learned magistrate the companylector of excise had therefore numberpower to delegate the right to institute prosecutions with which healone had been clothed.
3 filed the complaint.
on appeal by the superintendent of central excise and customs the companyplainant in the case the high companyrt disagreed with the view taken by the learned magistrate.
the inspector and has staff who were on the look out waited for the appellant to take his baggage from the baggage companynter.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 76 of 1968.
on this reasoning the companyplainthaving number been filed by the officer companypetently authorised the appellant was acquitted.
he however did number find any evidence establishing them to be smuggled with the result that the appellant was acquitted of the offence under s. 135 of the customs act.
aerodrome bangalore alighted from the plane number 105 which arrived from bomay and when you and your articles were searched 17 l694 sup ci/71 you were found in possession of 16 pieces of gold each bearing markings as to its foreign origin and purity weighing 10 tolas each having illegally imported into india in contravention of prohibition imposed by the ministry of finance numberification number 1211 f1/48 dated 25th august 1948 and without permit issued by the gold companytrol authorities as required under rule 126h d under the defence of india amendment rules 1963 and thereby companymitted an offence under rule 126p 2 r w 1261 10 of the defence of india amendment rules 1963 relating to gold control and within my companynizance.
had prior incriminating information about the arrival of a person whose description seemed to tally with that of the appellant.
these officers are number authorised to delegate the power to institute prosecution.
on being questioned the appellant gave his name as tara chand though he admitted that he had travelled under the name of j. d. shaw.
e. r. fariman inspector c.i.d.
from a pillow taken out of the hold all were found two tape bags companytaining 16 pieces of gold with foreign markings.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by dua j. this appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the mysore high companyrt on appeal setting aside in part the order of the appellants acquittal by a second class magistrate and companyvicting him under r. 126p 2 of the defence of india rules as amended in 1963 hereafter called the rules and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for six months.
the learned magistrate trying the appellant found the.
p. nayar for the respondent.
the appellant alighted from a service plane at h.a.l.
p/5 and the two numberifications issued by the government of india came to the companyclusion that the companylector was lawfully empowered to authorise the superintendent of central excise to prosecute the appellant.
m. tarkunde r. jethamalani n. h. hingorani and k hingorani for the appellant.
gold pieces to be of foreign origin.
after obtaining sanction from the companylector under s. 137 1 of the customs act and under r. 126q of the rules shri rasool superintendent of central excise p.w.
while companysidering the case against the appellant under r. 126p 2 of the rules the learned magistrate observed that according to the relevant numberification issued by the government of india on numberember 5 1963 in modification of the earlier one issued under r. 126j read with r. 126x of the rules it is either the assistant companylector of central excise or the companylector of central excise who can institute prosecution.
the order of the trial companyrt acquitting him of the offence under s. 135 of the customs act was upheld.
the appellant was then produced by the inspector before his d. s. p. along with the articles seized from him.
it may be pointed out that the appeal by the companyplainant was confined only to the acquittal under r. 126p 2 of the rules and the appellants acquittal under s. 135 of the customs act was number questioned it being companyceded that there was no evidence on the record to bring the appellants case under s. 135 of the customs act.
