TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (8) TMI 281
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellant Nagireddy Rajagopala Reddy and Rs. 11,000/- against appellant Hastimal under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 'ACT'). 2.  On 13-3-1983 the Sub-Inspector of Police, Indukurpet, Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh seized goods of foreign origin such as, Car Stereo Speakers, Car Stereo Tape Players, Tape Recorders, Stereo Cassette Recorders etc., along with Indian textiles and biri leaves, concealed under a haystack in the fields of Sureddy Chengaiah of Koratur village, Indukurpet Taluk, Nellore District. On 15-3-1983 the same Sub-Inspector of Police seized from a tomato field of one Tummala Sudhakar of Koratur village, one gunny bag containing foreign textiles. Again on 21-3-1983, the offi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... learned counsel, would not have any application at all in the facts of the present case. The learned counsel further submitted that the two seizures - one from the haystack and another from the tomato field - are from the open ground and were actually effected by the police authorities and, therefore, the goods cannot be said to have been seized from the possession of the appellants so as to come within the mischief and ambit of Sec. 123 of the Act. Regarding the seizure effected from the house of Moinullah Khan on 21-3-1983 the learned counsel urged that his clients Mohan Reddy and Rajagopala Reddy have not been in any way implicated by anybody with reference to the same. The learned counsel also further urged that under law clubbing an e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... there was evidence to show that appellant Mohan Reddy was guarding the goods with one Kanniah on the midnight of 12/13-3-1983, and that would confirm the fact that he was very much concerned with the goods under seizure and, - "Conscious guarding of the goods by him and Kannaiah Achari clearly shows that they were in possession of goods which are notified under Sec. 123 of the Act and which were illegally imported into the country." The adjudicating authority has further held under the impugned order,- "Items like tape recorder and synthetic fabrics are notified under Sec. 123 of the Customs Act and burden of proving that the goods are not smuggled lies on the parties who were associated and involved in the landing and concealing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reported in 1970 Criminal Law Journal p. 1305 to contend that when the seizure is effected by the Police authorities the presumption under Sec. 123 of the Act cannot be invoked. I respectfully agree with the ratio of the Bench Ruling of the Gujarat High Court and hold that the presumption under Sec. 123 cannot be invoked against the appellants in respect of the seizures from the haystack and tomato field. The Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court has placed reliance on the ruling of the Supreme Court reported in the case of 'Gian Chand and Others vs. State of Punjab' reported in 1962 S.C. 496 = 1983 E.L.T. 1365 (S.C.) where Their Lordships of the Supreme Court interpreted identical corresponding provisions in Sec. 178A of the Sea Customs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... reason as to how different seizures effected on different dates from different places could all be clubbed together under a common adjudication proceeding in the absence of any legal nexus intense between them or any evidence in the nature of a conspiracy to clearly indicate that the seizure effected from various dates from various places are all part of the same or a common transaction. No such evidence being available in the present case it is not open to the adjudicating authority to club those different seizures, at different points of time from different places on different dates in one adjudication and such an act on the part of the adjudicating authority would amount to misjoinder of causes of action resulting in prejudice to the ap....