TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1979 (2) TMI 216
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the burden of proving the guilt of the respondent. 3. Therefore, the short question before me is whether Section 123 is attracted in the present case and whether the burden lies on the respondent/defendant to prove that the goods in question were not smuggled goods. 4. The goods were seized from the petitioner by the police. The accused and the goods seized were taken to the Police Station and a panchanama was prepared. Thereafter the goods were handed over by the Police to the Customs Authority. It is evident that the seizure of the goods was not made by the Customs Authority. The expression "seize" was defined by the Supreme Court in 'Gian Chand v. State of Punjab', AIR 1962 SC 496, in the context in which it is used in the Act. That ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xplanation given by him was not correct. 6. It is argued by Shri Dias, learned Govt. Advocate that in 'Balumal Jamnadas Batra v. State Of Maharashtra ', (1975) 4 SCC 645 : AIR 1975 SC 2083, the seizure was made by the Police and yet the burden was cast on the accused to prove that the goods were not smuggled. What was decided in Balumal's case ((1975) 4 SCC 645 : AIR 1975 SC 2083) was not that a seizure made by the Police was a seizure within the meaning of S. 123 of the Act. The question raised there was that even if the provisions of S. 123 were not applicable, a presumption under S. 106 read with Sec. 114 of the Evidence Act was sufficient to enable the prosecution to ask the Court to presume that the appellant knew that the goods h....