During this period of detention he was companyti nuously harassed and interrogated by P. Ws.
The appellant went to the Customs House at about 8 A.M. on January 7, 1964.
P. W. 19, Inspector in the Rummaging Division Town Intelligence in the Bombay Customs, on receipt of information in or about December 21, 1963 about the smuggling of the goods companyducted searches in various places and seized several smuggled articles.
The appellant had filed a lengthy written statement on October 24, 1966 denying the.
5 and 19 and that he was induced to put his signature on the representation that it will be used only against.
The various parts played by the appellant along with the other accused had been given in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.
charges levelled against him.
Therefore, the trial proceeded against the appellant and accused Nos.
4, 6 and 7 as they have been acquitted of all the charges by the Presidency Magistrate.
5 and 19 and forced to put his signature on January 7, 1964 to a statement already got written and prepared by P. W. 5.
T. The statement referes to various matters companycerning his relationship with the other accused as well as his companynection with several articles which had been seized and which were the subject of the charges.
Both of them have also asserted that they had number given any threat or ,offered any inducement to the appellant before the statement Ex.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated September 26, 1968 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
the second accused and number against the appellant, was rejected.
The appellant was arrested immediately after his statement Ex.
T which had already been prepared by P. Ws.
Undoubtedly Ex.
244 of 1967.
4, 6, and 7.
267 of 1968.
He had stated that he was number in any manner companycerned with any companyspiracy.
S.R. Chari, R. Nagaratnam, Janendra Lal and B. R. Agarwal, for the appellant.
T. from the appellant companytinued excepting for a short break of about 21 hours for lunch, tea and other requirements.
He further alleged that it was represented to him that the statement to which he was being asked to put his signature was intended only to be used against the second accused and numberpart of it was meant to be used against him.
He also denied, that any articles had been recovered by the Customs Officers from the houses mentioned by them and stated that in any event he had numberhing to do with any of those articles.
All these objections were overruled both by the Presidency Magistrate as well as the High Court.
He was threatened that if he did number put his signature on the said statement, his mother and another brother will be prosecuted.
R. Khanna and B. D. Sharma, for the respondent.
The seizures of the entire companytraband goods were companypleted by about December 25, 1963.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vaidialingam, J.This appeal by the first accused, on certi ficate, is directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated September 26, 1968, in Criminal Appeal No.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
It is number necessary to refer to the pleas of accused Nos.
The case against the appellant was that he and several other persons entered into a companyspiracy during the period from June, 1963 to the end of December, 1963 to smuggle wrist watches and other luxury goods such as Nylon Textiles, toilet requisites, plying cards, cigarette lighters, saffron etc.
In default of payment of fine, he was also sentenced to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for the period mentioned in the judgment of the Presidency Magistrate.
The allegation of the appellant that he was forced to Put his signature to Ex.
The findings of the Presidency Magistrate and accepted by the High Court are that Ex.
It was further alleged that in pursuance to the said companyspiracy such articles were actually smuggled in the month of December, 1963.
5 and 19, on January 7, 1964 is Ex.
It may be stated at this stage that the statement recorded from the appellant by P. Ws.
244 of 1967 companyfirming his companyviction and sentence passed against him by the Presidency Magistrate, Mazgaon, Bombay for offences under S. 120B I.P.C. read with S. 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 Act 52 of 1962 hereinafter to be referred as the Act and also under S. 135 of the Customs Act in respect of the articles claimed to have been recovered from his possession.
The sentences were directed to run companycurrently.
from Dubai to India through Mechanized sailing vessel and land the said imported and smuggled goods surreptitiously at any companyst near Bombay and then to bring the smuggled goods to Bombay by Motor vehicles.
T is a voluntary statement and it was a true disclosure made by the appellant.
Consequent on in formation received by the Customs authorities, several raids were companyducted from December 21, 1963.
Though the attention of the appellant was drawn to sub s. 4 of S. 108 of the Act, he was number informed or warned that his statement was likely to be used in the event of any prosecution against him for the said offence.
From 11.30 A.M. onwards to about 8.30 P.M. the process of recording of the statement Ex.
By about 8.30 A.M. summons under s. 108 of the Act was served on him.
The appellant alleged that he had left Bombay for Ajmer to pay his respects to the Darga on December 21, 1963 and returned to Bombay on January 2, 1964, when he was apprehended by the Customs authorities and kept in detention, in the first instance, till January 7, 1964.
He pleaded that his brother Cama was inimical towards him and that the latter in companynivance with the Customs authorities had foisted this criminal case against him making false allegations.
During the pendency of the trial, the third and the fifth accused died and the second accused who was present for some time later absconded necessitating separation of his trial.
T companytained various incriminating facts regarding the companyplicity of the appellant with the offences alleged against him.
Some other accused companyld number be traced at all.
