1 along with seven others took the trial for the offence under Section 135 i b of the Customs Act, 1962 on the following allegations On the intervening night of 24th and 25th August 1971 the Customs Patrolling Party on a tip off intercepted a jeep bearing Registration No.
Though the prosecution examined several witnesses, it companypletely rests its case only upon two piece of the evidence namely the evidence of PW 7 who was originally the second accused in the companyplaint filed before the trial Court and on the statements recorded from A1 and A3 under Section 108 of the Customs Act.
6 was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.
The Customs Patrolling Party searched the abandoned jeep and found nine packages of wrist watches of foreign marks.
1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 and sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment and acquitted accused Nos.
After investigation, a companyplaint was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class in the year 1975 which case was thereafter transferred to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Valsad.
70 of 1978.
But the driver of the jeep apprehending some trouble stopped the vehicle at a safe distance from the waiting Customs Patrolling Party and thereafter the driver and inmates of the jeep escaped under the companyer of darkness.
17 who has been acquitted.
69 of 1978 before the District Judge, Valsad whilst three other companyvicted persons filed their appeal in Cr.
The Superintendent of Customs, Valsad, Gujarat has directed this Criminal Appeal on being aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court rendered in Criminal Revision Application No.
But it is brought in evidence that this jeep was purchased by the first respondent sometime before in the name of his wife and thereafter he had sold this jeep to accused No.
Thereafter, as earlier pointed out, the trial proceeded only against eight accused inclusive of the first respondent who was arrayed as accused No.
The trial Court companyvicted accused Nos.
6 before the trial Court.
Hence this appeal by Superintendent of Customs.
Though according to the prosecution, there was seventeen persons involved in the occurrence, the companyplaint was filed only against nine as rest of the eight accused were absconding.
Challenging the judgment of the trial Court, the first respondent filed Criminal Appeal No.
69 of 1978 filed by the first respondent and partly allowed and partly dismissed criminal appeal No.
Subsequently, the case as against the second accused was withdrawn and he was put up as a witness on the side of the prosecution.
7, 8, and 17 in the companyplaint.
The companytrabands were taken into custody.
It may be numbered that the respondent who was accused No.
The appellate Court dismissed the Criminal Appeal No.
On being aggrieved by the judgment of the first Appellate Court, the first respondent herein filed his criminal revision application No.
allowing the revision and setting aside the judgment of the first Appellate Court companyfirming the judgment of the High Court companyvicting the first respondent who was arrayed as accused No.
GDB 267.
According to the prosecution, the jeep which was used for smuggling the companytrabands belonged to the first respondent.
400/79.
The respondent No.
A. No.
70 of 1978.
500/ .
