1969 (12) TMI 44

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Bombay, for offences punishable under Section 135(b) read with Section 135 (1) of the customs Act, 1962; under Rule 126-P sub-rule (1)(i) read with Rule 126-P(1)(i) of the Defence of India (Amendment) Rules and lastly under Rule 126-P(1) (10) of the Defence of India (Amendment) Rules read with Rule 126-P sub-rule 2 (ii) of the Defence of India Rules for being in possession of 125, slabs of foreign....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ok the view that the room in question was not found to be in the exclusive occupation of the accused and, therefore, he could not be said to be in conscious possession of the contraband gold in question. He, therefore, acquitted the accused of all the charges levelled against him and against that order of acquittal, the State has come to this Court in appeal. 4.The submission of Mr. Kanade, app....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....we are concerned. His admissions on the other hand are that whenever in the past he had occasion to visit the room, he also found 2 or 3 other domestic servants present there. His evidence, therefore, if anything, shows that the room could not possibly be said to be in the exclusive occupation of this accused. 6.Although Mr. Lawrence Vaz and panch Takatmal Uttamchand Purohit want us to believe ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rments of Mr. Lawrence Vaz and Panch Takatmal Uttamchand Purohit that the key of the room was in fact produced by this accused. If the story about the production of the key by the accused is left out of consideration, it is difficult to hold that the room in question was in his exclusive possession. The learned Magistrate was not impressed by the testimony of the panch witness and there is, I thin....