Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

1963 (4) TMI 1

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o pay a fine of Rs. 200/- (or to suffer two months rigorous imprisonment more in default). Mauji Lal Sharma (Respondent No. 2) was convicted under section 353, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- (or to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months more, in default). Both the respondents were further convicted under section 342 of the Code but no separate punishment was imposed upon them thereunder. 2.The prosecution case, which was accepted by the learned trying Magistrate and which has not been doubted or disbelieved by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was that on receipt of certain secret information that some illegal transactions in tobacco were to take p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e two accused persons were put on trial. 4.The Prosecution case was supported in Court by the Inspector (P.W. 1) and his two sepoys (P.Ws. 3 and 4), besides a villager (P.W. 2) and a Chaukidar (P.W. 5). 5.The defence taken was that there was no occurrence at all and the respondents had been falsely implicated on account of bitter feelings between them and the Deputy Superintendent and the Inspector of Cential Excise. The defence, however, was not substantiated, except that it was shown that the respondents did not have good feelings against the Central Excise authorities. 6.The ground upon which the learned Additional Sessions Judge has recorded the acquittal of the respondents is mainly that the rules relating to search contained ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e of a dead body or blood-stained articles of similar other kinds of things associated with the commission of an offence. Inspection of a godown is not a search by itself, and inspection by a Central Excise Inspector is persmissible even if no offence has been committed, and such inspection of a godown is the ordinary part of the duties of an Inspector like P.W. 1. To inspection of this nature, there can be no question of following the provisions contained in Section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the learned Judge was quite wrong in rejecting the entire prosecution case on the footing that the alleged search was illegal. 7.One of the convictions was for theft of a Parker fountain-pen under Section 379, Indian Penal Co....