After further questioning by the Police, the appellant was summoned before Shri L. A. Digama, Addi tional Chief Inspector of Customs, Bombay, where his statement under section 108 of the Customs Act 1962 was recorded on 10 4 67.
Charges under the Defence, of India Rules were also preferred against him but he was acquitted of these.
He stated that, from what Pannalal had told him and also from the weight of the bars, he knew that he was carrying gold.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 16th January 1 971 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
79 of 1971.
The High Court of Bombay after carefully re examining the whole evidence in the case, had affirmed the companyviction and sentence of the appellant but, the appellant bad obtained special leave to appeal to this Court.
In that statement, the appellant admitted the recovery of gold bars from his person and stated that he had agreed with one Pannalal to carry them for delivery at Delhi for a sum of Rs.
100 to be paid to the appellant.
He stated that his father was also with him, but, as numberhing incriminating was recovered from the father, he was allowed to go away.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
R. Khanna and M. N. Shroff, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BEG, J. The appellant aged 23 was arrested on 9 4 1967 by the Railway Police at the Bombay Central Railway Station as he was hurriedly trying to get into a second class companypartment of the Frontier Mail bound for Delhi.
Hardayal Hardey and Ashok Grover, for the appellant.
These were seized by the Railway Police.
What have you to say about the same ?
1168 of 1968.
On a search of his person at the Police Station in the presence of Panchas, nine bars of gold with foreign markings were found secreted in especially made companycealed pockets of his trousers.
He also admitted that he knew that transporting of Old like this was a criminal offence.
It appears that manner in which he was trying to enter the second class companypartment and his nervourness on being questioned by a Railway C.I.D. Police Officer, although the appellant had a ticket on him, aroused suspicion so that the appellant was detained.
The appellant was prosecuted and companyvicted by the Presidency Magistrate of Bombay under section 135 b of the Customs Act of 1962 hereinafter referred to as the Act and sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment.
