20 3 of the Constitution was rejected on the ground that the application was premature.
An application by Poonamchand raising the companytention that the statements were inadmissible under s. 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and Art.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated September 8, 1966 of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Revision No.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated November 14, 1967 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Revision Application No.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated November 9, 1967 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Revision Application No.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated November 9, 1967 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Revision Application No.
2,61,800 and companyrespondence telegrams and cables bearing upon the companyspiracy to smuggle gold, precious stones etc.
into India from foreign companyntries were recovered from different places.
475 of 1967.
With special leave, Mehta has appealed to this Court.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION, Criminal Appeal No.
C. Misra, P.K. Ghosh for P.K. Chakravarty, for the appellant in Cr.
46 of 1968.
45 of 1968 .
A. No.
and between February 5, 1963 and March 6, 1963, the offenders had imported wat A.I.R. 1958 Cal.
The High Court of Calcutta rejected a petition invoking their revisional jurisdiction against the order of the Trial Magistrate.
The companyplainant tendered in evidence at the trial certain companyfessional statements which he claimed were made before the Customs Authorities in an enquiry under s. 171 A of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, by Mehta and the other persons accused.
231 of 1965 and Criminal Appeal No.
A. No.
27 of 1967.
At the trial the public prosecutor supplied to, the accused companyies of the statements made by Fatakia.
Criminal Appeal No.
A. No.
Counsel for the accused objected to the admissibility of that evidence but the objection was overruled by the Trial Magistrate.
Thereafter a companyplaint Was filed before the Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, against Fatakia for offences under s. 135 a and b of the Customs Act, 1962.
45, 46 and 47 of 1968 the statements were made to or recorded before the Customs Officers in an enquiry made under the Customs Act, 1962.
682 of 1967 and CriMinal Appeal No.
The Advocate for the accused objected to the admissibility of those statements.
47 of 1968 .
46 of 1968 .
The accused Fatakia then applied to the Magistrate.
47 of 1968.
A. No.
45 of 1968 .
46 of 1968 .
A. No.
It was the case of the companyplainant that when Mehta was searched on December 13, 1962, at the Dum Dum Airport, Calcutta, diamonds and jewellery worth Rs.
45 of 1968 On March 6, 1963, six parcels companytaining watches were seized by the Customs authorities at Santa Cruz Airport, Bombay.
46 of 1968 Dady Adarji Fatakia was arrested on December 26, 1964.
47 of 1968 On May 30, 1965, the Customs Officers seized 11,000 tolas of gold from a room in the occupation of the appellant Poonamchand and then recorded his statement after serving him with a summons under s. 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.
K. Daphtary, Attorney General, B. Sen and G.S. Chatterjee for the respondent in Cr.
The companytentions were negatived by the Magistrate and in a revision application to the High Court the order of the Presidency Magistrate was companyfirmed.
Criminal Appeal No.
27 of 1967 .
K. Sen, Parus .4.
Sen, A. P. Gandhi, R.N. Sachthey, S.P. Nayar and B.D. Sharma, for the respondents in Cr.
47 of 1968 .
1,91,000 were found on his person and currency numberes of Rs.
The Customs authorities recorded statements of the appellant Chitnis and attached certain documents from him.
At that time he was found in possession of 540 watches.
A companyplaint was filed against the appellant and two others in the Court of Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, 8th Court, Bombay, under s. 120B I.P. Code and s. 135 of the Customs Act, and Rule 126P 2 II and IV of the Defence of India Rules read with s. 109 I.P. Code and s. 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with s. 109 I.P. Code.
45 of 1968.
Sen and S., P. Nayar, for the respondents in Cr.
A. No.
P. Gandhi, R.N. Sachthey and S.P. Nayar, for the respondents in Cr.
The Trial Magistrate rejected the companytention and in a revision application filed before the High Court of Bombay the order passed by the Presidency Magistrate was companyfirmed.
447 of 1967 and Criminal Appeal No.
S.R. Chari, B.M. Patel and M.V. Goswami, for the appellant in Cr.
A. No.
27 of 1967 .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. The Assistant Collector of Customs filed a companyplaint against Romesh Chandra Mehta and four others in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate, 24 Parganas, charging them with offences under s. 120BI.P. Code read with s. 167 81 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, s. 5 of the Import Export Control Act, 1947, and for specific offences companymitted in pursuance of the companyspiracy.
27,000 were found in a suit case with him and that pursuant to a statement made by Mehta diamonds, pearls and jewellery of the value of Rs.
Thereafter the Customs authorities filed a companyplaint against Chitnis and thirteen others for offences under s. 120B I.P. Code read with s. 167 81 of the Sea Customs Act, and s. 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with s. 109 I.P. Code .alleging that between August 15, 1952 and January 28, 1963,.
He was served with a summons under s. 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, and he made a statement before a Customs Officer.
At the trial evidence was given by the Superintendent, Central Excise, Marine and Preventive Division, that the persons accused had made certain oral statement in his presence admitting their companyplicity in smuggling gold.
Rajendra Chaudhuri, for the appellant in Cr.
Mehta, Janendra Lal, J.R. Gagrat and B.R,Agarwala, for the appellant in Cr.
A. No.
Sen, .4.
In the three appeals Nos.
A revision application was then filed in the High Court and it was heard with the other petitions and was rejected.
