The learned Judicial Magistrate passed two orders rejecting the applications which orders, on revision by the respondents were companyfirmed by the Sessions Judge.
124 and 126 of 1978 filed by the Gujarat Government which were also allowed by the High Court.
94 and 98 in Criminal Case Nos.
98 and 97 of 1978 whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and orders dated 2.1.1978 of the Sessions Judge, Kutch at Bhuj made in Criminal Revision Application Nos.
46 and 45 of 1976 companyfirming the orders dated 19.6.76 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kutch in Application Exh.
to the value of about Rs.
After examination of the prosecution as well as the defence witnesses and recording of the statements of the appellants under Section 342 of the old CrPC hereinafter referred to as the Code arguments were advanced on behalf of the appellant accused.
124 and 125 of 1978.
929 and 930 of 1973 for offences punishable 1 under the provisions of the Customs Act 1962 and 2 under the Gold Control Act 1968.
What the appellant number companytends is that the order of the High Court permitting the prosecution to recall one of the witnesses already examined and to summon two other new witnesses to prove the foreign markings on the lagadis is in violation of the principle underlying Section 540.
After the Union of India examines the aforesaid three witnesses as aforesaid, it will be open to the accused to cross examine all the witnesses examined by the Union of India before the learned Magistrate.
929 and 930 of 1973 respectively.
In respect of this incident, the Assistant Collector of Customs filed two separate companyplaints on 26.11.1973 against the appellant in the companyrt of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Anjar, being criminal cases Nos.
The prosecution at this stage before companymencing its arguments filed two applications in both the cases under Section 540 of the old Code companyresponding to Section 311 of the new Code requesting the Trial Court to recall Mr. Mirchandani the Seizing Officer for further examination and to issue summons to two more witnesses, namely, Mr. K.K. Das, Assistant Collector of Customs and the Deputy Chief Officer Assayer of Mint Master, Bombay for examination either as prosecution witnesses or as companyrt witnesses as companytemplated under the said provision.
The factual matrix that have relevance to the questions, raised and canvassed at the hearing may be briefly stated.
A raid companyducted by the officers of the Customs Department in the business cum residential premises of the appellant on 17.9.1971 resulted in the seizure of some gold Lagadis bearing foreign marks, primary gold, gold ornaments and silver bricks, companyns etc.
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, these two appeals are preferred by the appellant.
The High Court by its Common Judgment, though heavily criticised the companyduct of the prosecution for its deplorable and lethargic attitude in number carefully and promptly companyducting the proceedings allowed all the Criminal Revisions for the reasons assigned therein holding thus In view of what has been stated above, I accept the four petitions filed in this Court by the Union of India, and the State of Gujarat, and direct the Union of India to examine the aforesaid three witnesses within a period of fortnight after the receipt of the order of this Court to the trial companyrt.
In this companytext, it is pertinent to numbere that the appellant has number directed any appeal against the judgment of the High Court in allowing the two other Revision Application Nos.
79,000 was also seized.
On being aggrieved by the said revisional orders, the Union of India the first respondent herein preferred two Criminal Revision Applications Nos.
The second respondent, namely, the State of Gujarat also preferred two other Criminal Revision Application Nos.
During the said raid a sum of Rs.
8,48,422.
Ratnavel Pandian, J. These criminal appeals by special leave granted under Article 136 of the Constitution of India are preferred by the appellant questioning the companyrectness of the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Criminal Revision Application Nos.
97 and 98 of 1978.
