There is other evidence also which justifies the companyclusions of facts arrived at in the judgment under appeal.
The circumstances of the recovery number merely deepen the suspicion but clinch the companyclusion.
The forensic quest for truth on facts, in the, usual run of cases, reaches the journeys end after one appeal, in any pragmatic system of justice,.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated the 10th December, 1969 of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
The shop from where the gold was got belongs to the accuseds business and there is evidence for it.
The disingenous explanation regarding the domestic discovery of gold also is hardly plausible.
9 have been rightly relied on by the companyrts below and are obviously crushing in their probative impact.
More incredible is the version regarding, the gold recovered from the house that it represented ornaments given to his wife by his mother, melted by her into a bar, and kept without his knowledge in the almirah of which he held the, key.
Mookherjee and D. N. Mukherjee, for the appellant.
73 of 1970.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
Armed with the authorization for search, P.W. 11 surprised the accused who was ,reciving on a pillow, laid on a mattress, underneath which slope two gold bars with foreign markings.
Two principal companytentions have been raised on behalf of the appellant.
The guiltless pillows on which the appellant companyfidently sat, hid the offending gold and the preknowing officers uncovered the companytraband with a sure instinct and these facts overpower the case of licit possession feigned by the accused.
Since a companytravention of s. 135 b of the Customs Act, 1962, was also prima facie made out a charge thereunder was framed.
518 of 1969.
The Judgments of the Court were delivered by Khanna J. and Khanna Iyer J. KHANNA, J. The facts of the case have been set out in the judgment of my learned brother Krishna Iyer J. and need number be repeated.
K. Chatterjee and G. S. Chatterjee, for the respondent.
The companyplaint based on these facts led to a charge, under Rule 126 I 1O of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 read with Rule 126 P 2 ii of the said Rules as also one under Rule 126 I 1 read with Rule 126 P 1 i .
Apart from all these companysiderations, in the present case an elderly gentleman of average intelligence and affluence and engaged in shrewd business had given a companynected set of answers an unconvincing alibi of innocent acquisition of gold bars, which hardly stood the test of astute scrutiny.
That the two gold bars with foreign markings were brought by this bullion merchant a little while before the search of his business place from an unknown broker has to be dismissed as a desperate plea.
The rejection of the wholly improbable portions of the statement was permissible and has been properly done.
And the incriminating admissions in the rather naive Ex.
The bars themselves bear on their bosom evidence of smuggled source, in the shape, of foreign markings.
