K. Chatterjee, B. D. Sharma and S. P. Nayar, for the respondent.
In order to ,examine the companyrectness of this finding, it is necessary to set out the material facts.
S.R. Chari, M. J. Mirchandani, K. K. Jain, H. K. Puri and Nagratnam, for the appellant.
Thereafter he went back to Jaipur.
On December 20, 1961 Goa was liberated by the Indian Army.
judges of the High Court did number go into that aspect of the case.
The substance of the charge under which he was companyvicted is that he by utilizing his position as a Government servant sent various articles such as Radios, Transistors, Clothes etc.,
from Goa to Bombay without paying customs duty.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde, J. The appellant and one R. B. Mathur were tried before the learned Special Judge for Greater Bombay under various charges including a charge of companyspiracy.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated April 17, 1967 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
Mathur was acquitted and the appeal against his acquittal was unsuccessful.
Thereafter the appellant was ,deputed as a Special Duty Officer to Goa.
He assumed additional charge as Director of Posts and Telegraphs on May 11, 1962 and he held that office till August 11, 1962.
The trial companyrt supported its companyclusion on a further ground namely that the assets of the appellant were more than that he companyld have acquired by his known sources of income.
default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for four months.
In 1961, the appellant was working as a Senior Superinten ,dent of Post Offices at Jaipur.
In appeal the learned.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The appellant was also acquitted of all charges excepting a charge under Section 5 2 read with Section 5 1 d of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
It is alleged that during the period of appellants stay in Goa, he made large purchases of certain luxury articles.
For that offence he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay a fine of Rs.
He was also held guilty of sending his personal articles in the vehicles engaged by the postal department without paying any charge.
5,000, in.,
The charges framed against the appellant made numberreference to the fact that his assets were more than that he companyld have acquired by his known sources of income.
He took charge in Goa on December 25, 1961.
80 of 1967.
1210 of 1965.
Evidently in its view the accusation regarding the sending of some articles in the vehicles engaged by the postal department was of a trifling nature and therefore riot worth examining.
But the High Court agreed with the trial companyrt that the appellant was guilty of evading payment of customs duty and he did so by utilizing his official position.
