TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (9) TMI 377
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de wrist watch movement illegally. On the basis of the source information and on the basis of such authorization order Customs Officials conducted a raid in the shop of the accused situated at Radha Bazar Lane on 5-12-1988 and in the said raid the officials had seized 2292 pieces of wrist watch movement of Russian, Swiss and Japanese made worth Rs. 2,33,845/ - from the false camber of ceiling and boxes. On demand the accused failed to produce any document to prove his possession of the same. That apart the officials seized Rs. 31,333/- from the almirah. The officials seized the same is belief that the same is to be the sale proceed of the accused smuggled wrist watch movement. It is the further case of the prosecution is that the customs officials are conducted a raid in the house of the accused beateel at 26/C, Adhirpukur Road, 2nd Floor, Kolkata - 700019 on 5-12-1988 on the basis of search authorization No. 204/P and recovered 179 pieces of wrist watch movement of Russian made valued at Rs. 15,215/- under the bed. In this case also accused could not produce any valid document in respect of the possession of the same. On the basis of search authorization customs officials searche....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ffice records that no import licence was issued in the name of the accused person. The cross-examination before charge has been declined and P.W. 2 was not produced for further cross-examination after charge. P.W. 3 Debabrata Kirtania is the Preventive Officer and posted at Calcutta Airport. P.W. 4 Gopinath Bandapadhya was also a Preventive Officer of Customs. P.W. 5 Dilip Kumar Saha was working as Customs Superintendent attached to same Division on the date of occurrence. He was posted as Preventive Officer, Customs House at Calcutta. P.W. 6 Aroop Swarup was the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Bhopal and he was posted at Collector office at the relevant time. P.W. 7 Soumen Chakraborty was posted in the office of the Superintendent Intelligence Section at Customs House, Kolkata at the relevant period. P.W. 8 Gopal Chandra Murmu was Senior Preventive Officer of Calcutta Customs. P.W. 9 Minoti Guha Thakurta Preventive Officer of Customs House and accompanied in a raiding party at the accused premises. P.W. 10 Pranabendu Sen, was a Senior Manager of Dena Bank. S.K. Bardhan, employee of the customs was examined as P.W. 11. P.W. 12 Chandan Dasgupta, the bank officer of Dena Bank. H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hakraborty, P.W. 9 Minoti Guha Thakurta and P.W. 11 S. K. Bardhan are the preventive officers and Superintendent of Customs at the relevant time i.e. in the year 1988 have stated in their evidence (I have not discussed their ocular version separately for the sake of convenience) that on the basis of source information as well as the search authorization they had been to the shop of the accused person and residence and recovered 2292 pieces of wrist watch of foreign origin. They also made search of locker of a nationalized bank standing in the name of Satnam Arora and recovered some currency notes. This was made under the seizure list and it was duly signed by the local witnesses. But it is curious enough to note that prosecution has failed to produce those local witnesses before the Court below in order to prove their signatures. It was argued by the learned lawyer appearing for the defence that practically there is no existence of the local witnesses. Mr. Amit Bhattacharya appearing in this case on behalf of the defence ably assisted by learned Counsel Ayan Bhattacharya have categorically stated that the customs officers are so lazy or to be more correct that they had not made any....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itted fact that accused made a statement under Section 108 of Customs Act and in his statement he stated that search was made in presence of the independent witnesses. But in absence of any witnesses or not non-production of the independent witnesses created a doubt in the mind of the court whether the statement made by the accused under Section 108 was taken voluntarily or under pressure. 9. P.W. 3 Mr. Kirtania has stated that wrist watch movements are of foreign made. He further contended that there is embossment of foreign country in the said writ watch movement but that witness i.e. Mr. Kirtania during the course of his cross-examination has categorically admitted that none of the seized wrist watch movement bears the name of the country which manufactured the same. All the other witnesses who happens to be customs officers and accompanying the raiding party has stated that all the wrist watch movements are made of foreign origin. But in their cross-examination they have not stated the name of the country who manufactures this wrist watch movement. So, at the ocular version of the raiding party i.e. the customs officers created a doubt in the mind of the Court about the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....citor General, the respondents from whom these contrabands were seized have not satisfactorily discharged the burden of proof cast upon them as required by Section 123 of the Customs Act that they are not smuggled goods. In this connection in the instant case I like to mention that the evidence adduced on behalf of the State does not proof beyond doubt that the goods were imported because only wrist watch movements having some different numbers which according to the customs officers are made of foreign country. But the expert who attend the Court from Bihar and have not stated clearly that these goods were imported and when it was seized though it was claimed that the two witnesses are present but their signature appearing on seizure list are in my humble opinion appears to be fictitious and witnesses have failed to identify the signature properly, moreover, the seizure witnesses as discussed earlier did not appear before the Court to depose. So, I am afraid this ruling is not applicable in the instant case. 12. From the side of the accused Mr. Bhattacharya (Senior) ably supported by (junior) Bhattacharya cited bundle of decisions not only of Apex Court but also of different....