He filed an appeal before the High Court but during the pendency of the appeal he is stated to have companymitted suicide and his appeal abated.
His case was that these carriers did smuggle goods for him but the same companysisted of Indian currency in specie.
The reasoning of the High Court was that the carriers who had arrived by these two ships and admittedly smuggled companytraband articles and since the version of A 1 that these goods companysisted of Indian currency in specie was false it followed that A 1 must have smuggled into India through these carriers luxury goods and watches worth Rs.
As regards the goods which had arrived by S.S. MARCONI the High Court found that the charges relating to them 63 to 66 related only to importing of goods otherwise than as bonafide personal baggage.
35.000/ had been smuggled into Bombay through the three carriers who arrived by ROMA.
Certain persons were employed as carriers.
The duties on these articles had number found any objectionable or companytraband articles like watches, etc.
The second set of charges related to the goods smuggled through two carriers of the name of Aziz and Herbert who arrived by the ship S.S. ASIA on Jan. 12, 1964.
As regards the charges 63 to 66 which related to the goods brought by Jagtiani and Vaswani P.Ws.
Cm charges Nos.
Z 70 was number voluntary.
The third set of charges related to the goods which were brought by Jagtiani and Vaswani P.Ws.
A. No.
The accused, who were tried, were Nos.
companycealed in the electric companykers or the other packages that Jagtiani and Vaswani had brought with them.
1 and 2, Accused No.
The State filed an appeal against the acquittal of accused Nos.
t had absconded.
The High Court companysidered the evidence including the cables which had passed between A 1 and the other alleged companyspirators and came to the companyclusion that numberclear inter connection was established between Harjani and A 1 The case of A 1 was that he was doing his own business with Atmaram till about the middle of Dec, 1963 and thereafter he did business with A 3.
The High Court felt difficulty in sustaining their companyviction on the companyspiracy charge which was set aside.
Out of accused Nos.
1 Gian Mdhtani, 2 Gobindram Harjani, 3 Ramchand Motwani, 7, 8, 9, 10 Budhoo, 11 Mohamed Ismail B. Bashir, 12 Nazruddin and 13 Abdul Latif.
He was to arrange for purchasing and sending the goods from there.
Only 10 out of them were tried because the re.
Daughter married Gobindram Ramcnand Atma Ram Harjani to A3 Ramchand Harjani Harjani married to sister of Motwani A2 P.W. 1 Al Gian Mahtani According to the case for the prosecution accused Nos.
28 to 33, 38 to 42 and 63 to 66.
1 was the principal financier and his share in the profits was fixed at 75.
The position with regard to the goods which came by the other ship M V ASIA through Aziz and Herbert was similar.
In the special filed by accused Nos.
Their companyviction, however, on charges 51, 52, 54, 55, 57 and 58 was maintained.
It has been directed that the sentences on all the charges shall run companycurrently.
Accused No.
300 to Rs.
3 Motwani was to be sent to Singapore as an employee of this Syndicate on a fixed salary.
Reference was made inter alia to Ext.
Mention may be made only of a companyfessional statement of A 1 which is Ext.
Harjani was made the principal prosecution witness.
15,000/ and 18,000/ watches, there was numberother evidence relating to the nature of the goods.
1 and 2 entered into a criminal companyspiracy with P.W. 1 Harjani in the first week of August, 1963, the object of companyspiracy being to purchase wrist watches and other luxury goods like saris, perfumes, electric companykers, etc from Singapore and smuggle them into India at Bombay.
63 to 66 a sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment has been imposed.
who arrived by the ship MARCONI A 1 had been companyvicted only for importing goods otherwise than as bona fide personal baggage.
Q a cable sent by A 1 to A 3, Ext.
As regards the three carriers who came by ROMA it was number disputed on behalf of A 1 that they had actually arrived by that ship.
He, however, found that A 1 was involved in a separate business of smuggling which was independent of the companyspiracy and, therefore, the companyspiracy charge which had been framed against him had number been proved.
7 to 13 only accused Nos.
The Court agreed that apart from the bare word of Harjani that these carriers brought luxury goods worth Rs.
1 and dismissed the appeal of accused Nos.
The High Court was satisfied that the decision of the learned Magistrate was companyrect about A 1 doing a separate business and number being a member of the companyspiracy.
The High Court proceeded to reject the defence and entertained numberdoubt that A 1 was smuggling watches and luxury goods.
The table given below will indicate the relationship between the principal accused persons, the main witness.
The duty which was levied on other luxury goods which were sent with them was paid by the companyspirators at the docks in Bombay.
1 and 2 Accused No.
7 to 13 were charged as the carriers of these goods and who had arrived by the steamship S S Marconi at Bombay on January 20, 1964.
The modus operandi of the companyspirators was that wrist watches were companycealed in tins meant for provisions and electric companykers in such a way that numberodys suspicion might be aroused.
The High Court rejected this part of the case of A 1 and was of the opinion that he was doing the same kind of business as Harjani i e. smuggling of watches and luxury goods.
10, 11 and 12 although their sentences were reduced to 6 months rigorous imprisonment.
10, 11 and 12 appealed to the High Court.
P.W. 1 Ramchand Harjani and certain other persons who figure in the case.
T which was sent by A 1 to Mohan Nagrani, Ext.
It was found that these appellants were carriers of tins which companytained watches and they knew that they were smuggling valuable goods.
The approach of the High Court was as follows Although the charges as framed of companyspiracy had number been proved against A 1 and it would number companyer the separate companyspiracy that had actually been proved between A 3 and A 1 for smuggling goods but he was guilty of the over acts companyered by charges Nos.
He has ascribed to himself a minor part and put the blame largely on A 2 and P.W. 1 Harjani.
3 was companyvicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years.
The trial Magistrate held that there was a companyspiracy to smuggle luxury goods and watches on a large scale as alleged in the companyplaint filed by the Assistant Collector of Customs on August 10, 1964 He was of the view that A 1 was engaged in smuggling business during the period of the companyspiracy.
In Cr.
A. 66/68 has been companyvicted by the High Court of charges Under Section 135 b ii of the Customs Act 1962 and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports Control Act 1947.
10, 11 and 12, it was held that they had been almost caught red handed and they had carried goods similar to those which had been admittedly received for the companyspiratOrs.
69 of 1968 the sentence of Budhoo and two others was reduced by the High Court to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.
2 and Harjani were to receive 25 Accused No.
2 died during the pendency of the appeal The High Court allowed the appeal against accused No.
Z 70 in which he admitted the hatching of the companyspiracy and the smuggling of luxury articles pursuant thereto.
He acquitted A 1 of all the charges but companyvicted the other accused as mentioned before.
The trial Magistrate acquitted accused Nos.
It, however, proceeded to examine the version given by A 1 in defence which was that he was doing business in currency.
He has been sentenced to two years on each of the several charges Nos.
The evidence on behalf of the prosecution companysidered of the testimony of Harjani, the cables which passed between the companyspirators and companyfession of A 1 which was retracted at the trial as also the deposition of Jagtiani and Vaswani P.W. Nos 2 and 10 .
It may be stated that Gian Mahtani had been acquitted by the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate but Budhoo and others had been companyvicted and sentenced to 9 months rigorous imprisonment by him on charges Nos.
They were paid their passage to Bombay mostly in the cabin class and also the additional sum of Rs.
400 each.
In the companyplaint these goods had been described as wrist watches and other luxury goods such as saris.
In all 66 charges were framed.
The first set of charges were in respect of the goods alleged to have been smuggled by three carriers of A 1 whose names were Ivan, Baptists and Farooq into Bombay on January 3, 1964 by the ship S.S. ROMA.
The Assistant Collector of Customs, Preventive Department, Bombay, filed a companyplaint dated August 10, 1964, against 21 persons.
The companyplaint was on charges Under Section 120B, Indian Penal Code read with Section 135 of the Customs Act 1962 and Section 5 of the Import and Export Control Act 1947, Accused Nos 1, 2 and 3 were arraigned as the principal companyspirators who were alleged to have smuggled large quantities of watches and luxury goods from Singapore to Bombay between August 1963 and January 20, 1984 Accused Nos.
The cables by which A 1 is stated to have made a large provision for smuggling were relied upon and from those cables it was found established that goods worth at least Rs.
51, 52, 54, 55, 57 and 58 which related to companymission of offences under the aforesaid enactments and Under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
According to the High Court, A 1 was interested in the companykers and other luxury articles which had been sent by A 3 to him with the carriers Jagtiani and Vaswani who had delivered them to him.
Accused No.
N. Grover, J. These appeals have been brought by certificate from a judgment of the Bombay High Court.
Gian Mahtani the sole appellant in Cr.
It came to the companyclusion that A 1 was interested in the companykers and other Luxury articles which were sent by A 3 to A 1 with the two carriers who came on the ship MARCONI and these goods had been delivered to him.
28 to 33 and 38 to 41, the sentences being companycurrent.
A 1 was, therefore, found guilty of charges 63 to 66.
35,000/ on January 3, 1964 and 20,000 Dollars on January 11, 1964 respectively.
