35 of 1967 is the appeal filed by accused Nos.
15 of 1967 challenge the companyrectness of the decision of the Bombay High Court in so far as it went against them and the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.
1 and 2 in the case Case No.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated October 12, 1966 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Revision Application No.
15 of 1967 is filed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay and the State of Maharashtra and Criminal Appeal No.
In the companyrse of the enquiry some of the goods said to have been smuggled were seized.
Thereafter on February 19, 1965, the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay after obtaining the required sanction of the Government flied a companyplaint against five persons including the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.
289 of 1966.
In addition penalty was imposed on some of the accused.
15 and 35 of 1967.
The appellants in Criminal Appeal No.
Criminal Appeal No.
37 , 75 , 76 and 81 of s. 167 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 Act VIII of 1878 as well as under s. 5 of the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947.
98 of 1965 in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay .
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeals Nos.
The prosecution case is that the accused persons and some other unknown persons had entered into a companyspiracy at Bombay and other places in the beginning Of October, 1959 or India and in pursuance of that companyspiracy they had smuggled several items of foreign goods in the years 1959 and 1960.
35 of 1967 accused Nos.
In that companynection an enquiry was held by the Customs authorities.
1 and 2 in the case under s. 120 B,I.P.C. read with cls.
15 of 1967 .
35 of 1967 .
It did number agree with the learned Magistrate that there was numberneed, at that stage to summon the statements of witnesses recorded Customs Act.
A. No.
A. No.
A. No.
The aforementioned questions were raised before the trial Magistrate by the 1st accused by means of an application but the learned Magistrate found ,no substance in the pleas advanced in that application and accordingly he dismissed the same as per his order dated 25,1 1966.
In so far as.
35 of 1967 challenge that decision in other respects.
15 of 1967 and the respondents in Cr.
N. Keswani, for the appellants in Cr.
R. Chaudhuri, for the intervener in Cr.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde, J. These appeals by certificate arise from the decision of the High Court of Bombay in Criminal Revision Application No.
It directed the learned Magistrate to summon hose statements and curiously enough, it went further and directed him to see that the prosecution made available the companyies of those statements to the accused before the companymencement of the enquiry in the case.
S.Bindra,R.M.Parikh and S.P. Nayar, for the appellants in Cr.
35 of 1967 and the respondents in Cr.
In revision, a .Division Bench of the Bombay High Court agreeing with the trial Magistrate negatived all but one of the companytentions advanced on behalf of accused Nos.
the Other documents called for are companycerned, the High Court after indicating, what according to it, is the law on the subject left the matter to the discretion of the learned Magistrate.
15 of 1967 .
A. No.
A. No.
1 and 2.
