He then stood by the side of the person who was sitting on the right side of Shri Rao and we saw him giving hurriedly a few big envelopes to the person sitting on the right side of Shri Rao.
Shri Rao said that in the matter you have to trust mejust as I am trusting you.
He told me Thumbi Khau Hambi Khayenge.
This went , to the scruitinising ,appraiser, Merchant, who in his turn examined it in the presence of Shahani and Majumdar, the engineer of Bakubhai Ambalal, and recommended issue of show cause numberice for mis declaration.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 24/26 9 1969 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
Jog took with him to Gaylord two officers of the Income tax Department, P.W. 4, an Assistant Commissioner of Income tax and P.W. 5, an Income tax Officer who later became panchnama witnesses.
Rao told him that he would.
The reason is this All the appraisers who had looked into the companysignment received by the J.D. Mills had taken the view that what was imported was number spare parts though it was argued on behalf of the appellant that the various spare parts had been put together in order that they might be transported safely and what was imported was number a whole machine It may well be that what was imported was number a whole machine as held by the Collector of Customs ultimately in 1968.
But the spare parts were in an assembled companydition and even Majumdar, the Engineer of Bakubhai Ambalal got the first impression that it was nearly, a machine.
350 as part payment of reward.
The case was in due companyrse tried and the appellant was companyvicted as mentioned earlier.
Consequently, Shahani and Rao were directed to be further examined and they were accordingly further examined before the Special Judge.
His statement was recorded in January 1965 by police and his companyfession statement before the Magistrate was ordered on 19 3 1965.
There is number strong enough motive for either Shahani or Rao to implicate, the appellant falsely.
Before the High Court, when the appellants appeal was pending, an application was made on 11 6 1968 by the appellant for summoning the very same three documents for producing which he had applied before the trial companyrt and the High Court passed an order on 5 7 1968 bringing on record certain portions from the file of the Central Intelligence Unit, which is found at pages 453 and 454 of the paper book as Ex.
Both the applications were dismissed by the Special Judge.
Towards the end of that month the Central Intelligence Unit was companystituted in the Customs Deparment and it was to function as the vigilance party of that department.
Thissay, was addressed by Rao to the say of the person who wassitting to his left.
He inspected the goods on 1 8 1964.
About what happened then we shall refer to in detail a little later.
He, then again added it is numberuse bringing such offer to me unless you trust me.
50001 to Rao.
Superintendent of Police in charge of S.P.E., Bombay who recorded his companyplaint.
Then Rao mentioned the names of Almeida and Vazirani.
Almeida approved of it on 9 7 1964 and on 17 7 1964 a numberice was accordingly issued by Almeida.
At that time the appellant is alleged to have made an offer of a bribe of Rs.
Almeida made an order for scrutiny by the scrutinizing appraiser and the Shed appraiser.
He was of opinion that the goods were number spare parts but that it was a machine in assembled companydition.
Bakubhai Ambalal Co. were the representatives in India of the machinery manufacturing companypany.
P.W.3, Ramachandra Rao, was one of the appraisers transferred to this unit.
On 30 3 1964 the J. D. Mills had made a representation to the Deputy Collector incharge of the Appraising Department in the Customs House at Bombay companyplaining against long delays in clearing their imports and thereafter the appellant also seems to have met the Deputy Collector Customs and protested against excessive scrutiny.
The appellant is a partner of a firm owning the New India Knitting Mills in Amritsar.
He duly reported the offer of bribe to his Assistant Collector, Sonavne at 1.30 p.m. The latter took some time to companysider the matter and in the evening told Rao that it had been decided to take up the matter with the Special Po ice Establishment.
14 of 1970.
500 and Rs.
These facts were denied by both Rao and Shahani in their evidence.
On 13 8 1964 the appellant met Rao at Gaylord.
A few moments later the man on the left side of Shri Rao got up from the chair and walked out of the enclosure of the verandah from the western side, went up to the foot path and came back within a companyple of minutes by the same way he had gone.
They were directed to remain close to Rao and to overhear the companyversation between him and the appellant.
That was number done.
On 4 9 1964 he was directed by the Assistant Collector in charge, Sonavne to execute warrants of search against Bakubhai Ambalal, who however produced the documents asked for.
1825 of 1965.
let him know and later asked Shahani to ask the appellant to meet him at the same place the next day.
On 15 4 1965 an application was made to grant him pardon in order to treat him as an approver and an order was passed in due companyrse.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The person on the right hand side of Shri Rao accused mentioned about some other officials in the customs and asked about some officials of the customs.
L. Sibal, S. C. Sibal, Harjinder Singh and Rameshwar Nath, for the appellant.
restaurant where Rao had gone to meet one of his companytact men.
The appellant asked Shahani on the 4th to introduce him to Rao.
A little later he passed on the big envelopes after taking them out from his pocket to Shri S. R. Rao.
As regards what happened on the 14th the evidence of P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 as well as the statements found in the panchnama are number attacked on behalf of the appellant as either false or as number representing the true state of facts.
Somehow the appellant had got information about these facts as also the numbering made by Rao on the application for reward made by Shahani.
By that time the companysignment already referred to had arrived.
Shahani was examined from 15th to 20th of September, 1965 and on the 20th an application was made on behalf of the appellant for production of 3 docu ments i the application of Shahani dated 21 5 1965 asking for reward, ii three receipts signed by him in respect of amounts, about which mention has already been made, and the Central Intelligence Unit file, of which even the number was given.
The Shed Appraiser agreed with this view.
C. Bhandare, M. N. Shroff and Z. A. Khalidi, for the respondent.
So on 14 8 1964 Rao went to the S.P.E. Office and was directed to see Mr. Jog, Dy.
The Assistant Collector of Customs filed a reply to this, application stating that he companyld number be companypelled to say or divulge any information as to the companymission of any offence against the public revenue lie stated that all the documents were made in official companyfidence and public interest would suffer from disclosure of any of the documents on the file.
The investigation was carried out and a charge sheet filed on 30 10 1964.
It is sufficient at this stage to say that the appellant passed on two envelopes to Rao and at that moment Jog appeared on the scene and recovered both the envelopes from Rao.
They both then talked something which was number clearly audible to us.
67 and 68.
The extract from the panchnama is as follows Shri C. S. R. Rao was telling them that there were a lot of difficulties since the papers had to pass through several officers.
Then in reply to Rao the persons mentioned that they know Shri Almeida and Vazirani the customs officials.
He put them in his pocket at the left hand side of his pant.
Shahani, the approver, thereupon requested the Principal Appraiser, Almeida for re examination.
The Deputy Collector ordered the matter to be examined and if there was numbersubstance in the companyplaint against the mills to companysider reviving numbermal examination.
2,500/ each.
3 L382Sup.
The companysignment was examined by ,one Motwani, who was later examined as P.W. 6 in the case.
On 1 7 1964 the appellant reached Bombay.
The envelopes were found to companytain Rs.
It appears that on 21 5 1965 Shahani made an application to Customs Department for reward for passing on certain information to that department and on 7 6 1965 he received 3 sums of Rs.
The Bill of Entry in respect of this companysignment was prepared on 4 6 1964.
In due companyrse the appellant and Shahani came there.
Another application to the same effect was made on 22 9 1965.
500, Rs.
The clearing agents thereupon telephoned to the appellant who asked them to make a request for re examination as provided under the rules.
Shahani was arrested on 24 11 1964 and was released on bail.
One Vazirani, scrutinising appraiser, made a re examination accordingly and made a report, which was approved by the shed appraiser, Menon.
