TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1979 (12) TMI 78
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esidential premises of the accused-respondent at Old Hanuman Lane, Bombay was searched at about 1 p.m. The respondent himself was not present at his house, but his wife and mother were present in the premises at the time of the search. As a result of the search, the Anti-Corruption Bureau recovered 100 gold bars, each weighing 10 tolas, These gold bars had foreign markings and were in the shape of gold biscuits of 24 carats purity and were found stitched in a cotton jacket, which was lying in a steel trunk underneath some clothes. The prevailing market value of the recovered gold was Rs. 1,85,000. As the search was being completed and the Panchanama prepared, the Customs Authorities, also, raided the premises. The Anti-Corruption Bureau, however, first completed its Panchnama and later on a separate Panchnama was prepared under which the gold so seized by the Anti-Corruption Bureau was taken possession of by the Customs Authorities. The case of the prosecution further was that the respondent remained absconding after this recovery till March 14, 1968, when he surrendered. 4. The Customs Authorities, also, took proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962, and during the course of tho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be interpreted as being confined to acquiring of ownership and not to the mere acquiring of possession. It further held that there was no `acceptance' of gold by the accused within the meaning of Rule 126-P(2)(iv) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, because the accused being away from home, had no choice of accepting or refusing the same. 9. As before the trial court, here also, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, contends that the search and seizure by the police of the gold from the house of the respondent, was illegal, that the information on the basis of which the police conducted the search was not produced, and that this illegality had vitiated the trial that followed : In the alternative, counsel submits that Section 123 of the Customs Act, which places the burden on the accused-person to show that the seized goods are not smuggled gold, was not applicable in the present case, because the seizure of the gold was not made by the Customs Authorities under the Customs Act, 1962, but by the Police under the Code of Criminal Procedure. This being the case-proceeds the argument-the burden lay heavily on the prosecution to prove every ingredient of the offences with ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hammed, AIR 1978 S.C. 933, question arose, whether the failure on the part of the Food Inspector to comply strictly with the statutory provisions, would vitiate the trial and conviction of the respondent? This Court answered this question in the negative, and referred with approval to the decision, dated July 6, 1976, in W.T. Stone, Warden, 74-1055 v. Lloyd Charles Powell and Charles L. Wolff Jr. Warden, 74-1222 v. David L. Rice, wherein the Supreme Court of the United States of America made a clear departure from its previous decision in the application of the `exclusionary rule' of evidence. The prosecution in those cases relied upon the evidence of search and seizure, which were said to be unconstitutional and unlawful. Mr. Justice Powell, who delivered the leading majority judgment, made these pertinent observations : "Upon examination, we conclude, in light of the nature and purpose of the fourth Amendment exclusionary rule, that this view is unjustified. We hold, therefore, that where the State has provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of Fourth Amendment claim, the Constitution does not require that a State prisoner be granted federal habeas corpus relief o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m which may extend to seven years and with fine : Provided that in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be recorded in the judgment of the court, such imprisonment shall not be less than one year; (ii) in any other case, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. Section 111 enumerates the categories of goods which are imported into India and are liable to confiscation. Broadly speaking, these categories relate to goods which are smuggled into India." 17. The requisite guilty knowledge or mens rea under Clauses(a) and (b) of Section 135(1) can be established by circumstantial evidence also. In order to substantiate the charge under Clause(b) against the respondent, the prosecution had to prove : (i) that he had acquired possession of or was in any way concerned in keeping or concealing the gold bars; (ii) that he knew or had reason to believe that these gold bars were smuggled goods, and thus liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act. 18. It is trite law that even in cases where Seciton 123(1) of the Customs Act is not attracted, the prosecution can discharge its burden by esta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xes were seized by the Police from a Room No.10 at Sheriff Deoji Street, Bombay. On opening the boxes, goods bearing foreign markings such as `Made in Germany', were found. A rent receipt in the name of the accused in respect of Room No. 10, in the occupation of the accused was also recovered. It was held by this Court, that even if the goods bearing foreign markings, were not seized under the Customs Act, and as such Section 123(1) of the Act was not attracted, the aforementioned circumstances, under Section 114 read with Section 106 of the Evidence Act were sufficient to presume that the accused knew that the goods had been smuggled or imported in contravention of law. 21. In the instant case, while holding that the respondent was in conscious possession of the gold bars in question, the High Court has acquitted him only on the ground that the porsecution had failed to prove that the gold in question had been imported after 1947 without the necessary permission of the Reserve Bank, or without payment of duty and that the further question as to whether the accused knew that it was smuggled gold `does not really arise'. With this reasoning the High Court acquitted the respondent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....b) of Section 135(1). 23. It may be remembered that smuggling, particularly of gold, into India affects the public economy and financial stability of the country. The provisions of Section 135(1) and like statutes which are designed to suppress smuggling have to be construed in accordance with the Mischief Rule first enunciated in Heydon's case. Accordingly, the words `acquires possession' or `keeping' in Clause(b) of Section 135(1) are not to be restricted to `possession' or `keeping' acquired as an owner or a purchaser of the goods, Such a narrow construction-which has been erroneously adopted by the High Court-in our opinion would defeat the object of these provisions and undermine their efficacy as instruments for suppression of the mischief which the Legislature had in view. Construed in consonance with the scheme of the statute, the purpose of these provisions and the context, the expression `acquires possession' is of very wide amplitude and will certainly include the acquisition of possession by a person in a capacity other than as owner of purchaser. This expression takes its colour from the succeeding phrase commencing with the word `or' which is so widely worded that ....