From the Judgment and order dated the 26 3 71 of the Bombay High Court at Bombay in Criminal Appeal No.
Indeed, the police appear to have dropped further proceedings.
It is further admitted that some Bania paid Rs.
Even in respect of that offence, the police did number register any case or enter any F.I.R. which numbermally furnishes a foundation for companymencing a police investigation.
Under the circumstances it was manifest that at the time when the Custom officer recorded the statement of the appellant, the latter was number formally accused of any offence.
They informed the customs authorities, who opened the packages, inspected the goods and on finding them companytraband goods, seized them under a Panchnama.
The police did number open the packages or prepare inventories of the goods packed therein.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
234 of 1971.
2 in the companyplaint filed by Assistant Collector of Customs, Preventive Department, Bombay before the Chief Presidency Magistrate for his prosecution along with one Abdul Umrao Rauf, accused No.
1, in respect of offences under ss.
R. Khanna and M. N. Shroff for Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA, J. Veera Ibrahim, appellant was accused No.
1434 of 1970.
R. Chaudhury and K. Rajendra Chaudhury for the Appellant.
1 which was proved by W. 4, it is admitted that these packages which were later found to companytain companytraband goods by the Customs authorities, were surreptitiously loaded in the truck under companyer of darkness at Reti Bunder sea shore from the side of sea side wall, in the presence of the appellant, and thereafter the first accused took the wheel, while the appellant sat by his side in the truck, and drove towards Sandhurst Station.
The Customs authorities called the appellant and his companypanion to the Customs House, took them into custody, and after due companypliance with the requirements of law, the Inspector of Customs questioned the appellant and recorded his statement under s. 108 of the Customs Act.
They did number take any steps for prosecuting the appellant even for an offence under the Bombay Police Act, 1951.
The above quoted observations are a companyplete answer to the companytention of the appellant.
In the case of an offence by infringement of the Sea Customs Act and punishable at the trial before a Magistrate, there is an accusation when a companyplaint is lodged by an officer companypetent in that behalf before the Magistrate.
