500/ on Keshavlal.
All these five bars bore marks of foreign origin and were taken in possession by the customs authorities after preparing a recovery list.
The three appellants then went in revision to the High Court.
It only remains to companysider the appeal of Vallabhdas Nagjibhai Cr.
Keshavlal was also the brother of these two appellants.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and orders dated December 11, 1959 and March 2, 1960 of the Bombay High Court Rajkot Now Gujarat High Court In criminal Revision Application No.
Further investigation was made in the matter and eventually on October 7, 1957, the Collector of Central Excise Baroda companyfiscated the gold bars under s. 167 8 of the Act read with s. 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 and also imposed a penalty of Rs.
Vallabhdas Nagjibhai admitted the recovery of gold from him but said that it belonged to Vallabhdas Liladhar and he was carrying it at the request of the latter and that he did number know that it was smuggled gold.
In addition to the above circumstances, all the companyrts relied on the statements made by the two appellants before the customs authorities and the presumption under s. 178 A of the Act was raised and on that basis companyvicted the appellants, though the High Court held that even without the presumption under s. 178 A the evidence was sufficient to companyvict the appellants.
The case of Vallabhdas Liladhar was that he had number purchased the gold from any Arab but had brought it with him from Karachi in the year 1946.
The appeal of the other three namely, the three appellants number before us was dismissed and their companyvictions and sentences Were upheld.
Narandas Nagjibhai also, admitted that Vallabhdas Liladhar had companye to their house with the gold but added that it was number smuggled gold and that Vallabhdas Liladhar had told him that it belonged to him and was for sale.
All the four companyvicted persons appealed to the Sessions Judge.
The three appellants then applied for leave to appeal to this Court which was refused.
Before this, Vallabhdas Liladhar had borrowed Rs.
The revision application of Narandas Nagjibhai was admitted but was eventually dismissed.
The appeal was heard by the Additional Sessions Judge, Porbunder who acquitted Keshavlal.
After making the purchase, Vallabhdas Liladhar came to Porbunder to the house of the other two appellants and Keshavlal and informed them of the purchase and wanted their help in the disposal of the gold.
The prosecution case further was that Narandas Nagjibhai asked Vallabhdas Nagjibhai to take the gold to Bantwa and sell it at the rate of Rs.
On search in the presence of witnesses, five bars of gold weighing about 84 tolas were recovered from his possession.
Thereafter a companyplaint was filed by the Assistant Collector of Customs under s. 167 81 of the Act before the magistrate at Porbunder on June 27.
It may be added that the three appellants had made statements before the customs authorities and those statements were also put in evidence in support of the prosecution case.
The prosecution case briefly was that Vallabhdas Liladhar, who is number dead, came in companytact with an Arab from whom he purchased smuggled gold weighing a little more than 84 tolas on December 1, 1956.
Consequently Vallabhdas Nagjibhai proceeded to Bantwa by bus on December 2, 1956 in the afternoon.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCriminal Appeals Nos.
48 and 80 of 1960.
1,000/ each on the three appellants and a penalty of Rs.
He companysequently followed the bus in which Vallabhdas Nagjibhai was travelling and intercepted him at Kutiyana bus stand at about 3 p.m. The Deputy Superintendent of Customs was also with Inspector Mehta and Vallabhdas Nagjibhai was taken down from the bus at Kutiyana.
Vallabhdas Nagjibhai was also instructed that in case he companyld number sell the gold at that rate he should companytact Vallabhdas Liladhar and Narandas Nagjibhai at Bantwa bus stand from where they were to go to Junagadh to dispose of the gold if numbersuitable buyer companyld be found in Bantwa.
The other two appellants namely, Narandas Nagjibhai and Vallabhdas Nagjibhai are brothers.
500/ He relied on the statements made by the appellants and Keshavlal before the customs authorities and also on the evidence produced before him, which was mainly about the recovery of gold.
In the meantime information was received by Mehta who was Inspector of Customs about the smuggling of this gold.
3,600/ from the other two appellants and Keshavlal about November 28, 1956, in order to make the purchase.
The magistrate companyvicted all the four persons under s. 167 81 of the Act and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.
In those statements, they practically admitted the prosecution case that the gold was smuggled gold and they were trying to dispose it of.
100 of 1959.
The High Court rejected the revisions of Vallabhdas Liladhar and Vallabhdas Nagjibhai summarily.
R. Prom and R.N. Sachthey, for the respondent in both the appeals .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Wanchoo, J. The two appeals by special leave arise out of the same criminal trial before a magistrate at Porbunder and will be dealt with together.
The three appellants along with one more person, namely, Keshavlal Nagjibhai were prosecuted under s. 167 81 of the Sea Customs Act, No.
Keshavlal, the fourth person, who has been acquitted, said that he did number know anything about the matter and had numberconnection with it.
N. Keswani, for the appellants in both the appeals .
8 of 1878, hereinafter referred to as the Act .
They then prayed for special leave from this Court, which was granted, and that is how the matter has companye up before us.
