1970 (1) TMI 29 - SC - Customs

Bombay High Court Upholds Convictions for Undeclared Gold Possession

AMBALAL CHIMMANLAL CHOKSHI Versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

AMBALAL CHIMMANLAL CHOKSHI Versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - 1999 (110) E.L.T. 376 (SC) Issues:1. Conviction under Rule 126P(2)(II) of the Defence of India Rules and Section 135(ii), read with Section 135(b) of the Customs Act.Analysis:The appellant was convicted under Rule 126P(2)(II) of the Defence of India Rules and Section 135(ii), read with Section 135(b) of the Customs Act by the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, 8th Court, Bombay. The appellant was sentenced to nine months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for each offence. The High Court of Bombay confirmed the convictions and sentences on appeal. The issue at hand involves the legality and validity of the convictions under the mentioned rules and sections.Chokshi was accused of residing in a flat in Bombay where a search was conducted by the Excise Department officials. The search revealed incriminating evidence, including gold slabs and currency notes, which led to the prosecution under the Gold Control Order and the Customs Act. The key question in this case was whether Chokshi was responsible for throwing two bags containing gold from his flat or if they were thrown by someone else. The circumstantial evidence pointed towards Chokshi's involvement in the act, as concluded by the High Court and the Presidency Magistrate.The prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence to establish that Chokshi was the one who threw the bags from his flat. The High Court found the prosecution's version convincing and conclusive, ruling out the possibility of other individuals, including Chokshi's family members, being responsible for the act. The evidence, including the matching weights of the gold pieces and written accounts, supported the conclusion that Chokshi was the one who disposed of the gold illegally.Despite arguments of discrimination and unfair treatment under the Gold Bond Scheme, the Court dismissed these contentions, emphasizing that prosecution for possessing undeclared foreign gold was justified under the law. The Court rejected claims of discrimination, stating that prosecution of one individual does not constitute discrimination, even if others may have evaded prosecution for similar offences. The appeal was consequently dismissed, affirming the convictions and sentences imposed on Chokshi.In conclusion, the judgment upheld the convictions of the appellant under the Defence of India Rules and the Customs Act, based on the compelling circumstantial evidence that pointed towards his involvement in disposing of undeclared gold. The Court rejected claims of discrimination and affirmed the legality of prosecuting individuals for possessing foreign gold without declaration, ultimately dismissing the appeal brought by Chokshi.