The gold bars too were handed over to Advani.
The accused in his statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stated that the gold bars in question had number been recovered from him.
In the meanwhile, Mr. Nasrullah, Chief Magistrate had retired and had been succeeded by Mr. Gehani.
No evidence was produced in defence.
The accused added that earlier than that Hafizji had never kept any bag or gold at his shop.
The judgment of the trial companyrt, as mentioned earlier, was companyfirmed on appeal by the High Court.
Fresh charge in identical terms was thereafter framed by Mr. Gehani against the accused and was signed by him.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 16th January, 1970 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
It was then numbericed that the charge framed against the accused by Mr. Nasrullah had number been signed by him.
A of the accused.
A companyplaint was thereafter filed against the accused by the Assistant Collector of Customs on the allegation that the accused had companymitted an offence under section 167 81 of the Sea Customs Act.
Sahani was companyfronted with his earlier statement recorded by himself and the aforesaid statement showed that the version given by him after the framing of charge, by Mr., Gehani was absolutely inconsistent with the earlier statement recorded by Sahani himself.
A. which was recorded by Customs Officer Advani PW 2 .
Advani recorded statement Ex.
The bag was then found to companytain 56 gold bars of ten tolas each with foreign markings.
After the de parture of Hafizji the accused felt that the bag was heavy.
A, the amused is a goldsmith and has his own shop.
According to statement Ex.
694 of 1968.
The accused denied having anything to do with the gold bars which were taken into possession by Sub Inspector Sahani.
The prosecution case is that on August 17, 1961 Sub Inspector Sahani of the Railway Preventive Section, on receipt of some information, went to room No.
The trial companyrt and the High Court did number accept that part of statement Ex.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
It appears that Sahani wanted to spite the prosecution because of his companypulsory retirement as a measure of punishment.
There was further cross examination of these two witnesses on February 12, 1964 after the framing of the charge.
the accused companysisted of gold bars with foreign markings, the matter was entrusted to the Customs Officer H. C. Advani PW 2 .
On the day of occurrence at about 2.30 p.m., it is stated, one Hafizji came to the shop of the accused and told him to keep the bag in question for about an hour whereafter Hafizji, undertook to take the bag back.
V. Gupte and R. B. Dattar, for the appellant.
Gobind Das and S. P. Nayar, for respondent No.1.
The Chief Presidency Magistrate before whom the accused was sent up for trial accepted the prosecution allegations and rejected the version of the accused.
The said bag was taken into possession by the Sub Inspector add was found to companytain 25 bars of gold, weighing ten tolas each, of the value of Rs.
A wherein the accused had stated about Hafizji having left, the bag companytaining gold bars with the accused.
48 of 1970.
78,400/. The bars had foreign markings.
On February 25, 1964 the trial companyrt stayed further proceedings in the case to await the decision of a case pending in this Court, wherein it was stated a question of law having bearing upon the present case was involved.
The proceedings in the case were revived on November 10, 1967 after this Court gave its decision in the other case.
Charge under section 167 81 of the Sea Customs Act was thereafter framed against the accused.
2 on the second floor of Bori Chawl in the 13th lane, Kamathipura, Bombay.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KHANNA, J. This appeal by special leave is against the judgment of the Bombay High Court affirming on appeal the companyviction of the appellant under section 167 81 of the Sea Customs Act and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years.
The accused was found present there, holding a bag.
N. Lokur and S. P. Nayar, for respondent No.
The Sub Inspector arrested the accused for an offence under section 124 of the Bombay Police Act.
As the articles recovered from.
According to him, the bag companytaining gold bars was recovered by the police officer from the second floor of the building whereas the accused resided on the ground floor.
In this respect we find that the statements of Sahani and Advani were recorded by Mr. Nasrullah, Chief Presidency Magistrate on February 6, 1964.
