TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1965 (3) TMI 15
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...."That you between the period from January, 1961 and 15th September, 1962 at Calcutta, Dum Dum, Hong Kong and other places along with others were parties to a criminal conspiracy of being knowingly concerned in the unlawful importation of wrist watches from Hong Kong to Calcutta by Air India International aircraft and in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibitions and restrictions of such importation and you thereby committed offence punishable under Section 120B Indian Penal Code read with Section 167 (81) of the Sea Customs Act and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act and within my cognizance." 3.In the charge it will appear that as many as fourteen accused persons charged with the offence as mentioned above. Of them the ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ota of evidence to implicating him under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, with other accused persons as mentioned before. Further it is contended that only the evidence regarding Indrajit Singh is of P.W. 23 Sri P.N. Chatterjee. Preventive Officer, Calcutta Customs and P.W. 26 W. Ahmed, Customs Inspector, Dum Dum Airport. But from their statements it cannot be found that this petitioner Indrajit Singh could be implicated in any way. Accordingly it is contended by Mr. Dutta appearing for the petitioner Indrajit Singh that the Magistrate committed an error by framing a charge against this petitioner only on the basis of confessional statement of the co-accused before the Customs officer. This, according to Mr. Datta, is not warranted by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tances which are considered by the court as well as probabilities do amount to evidence in that generic sense. Thus, though confession may be regarded as evidence in that generic sense because of the provisions of S. 30, the fact remains that it is not evidence, as defined by S. 3 of the Act. The result, therefore, is that in dealing with a case against an accused person, the court cannot start with the confession of a co-accused person; it must begin with other evidence adduced by the prosecution and after it has formed its opinion with regard to the quality and effect of the said evidence, then it is permissible to turn to the confession in order to receive assurance, to the conclusion of guilt which the judicial mind is about to reach on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rned Magistrate was not justified in framing the charge in the manner he did, against Indrajit Singh. 8.Let us now take up the case of V.C. Bharathan and K.S. Takhar. It appears clearly that they have been charged with the same offence as I have stated before in connection with Indrajit Singh. These two persons were indicated for the same offence by the learned Magistrate as appearing from the charge. They are accused Nos. 12 and 13. It is clear from the statement as made in their petition that they are also the Preventive officers of Calcutta Customs and the petitioner No. 1 V.C. Bharathan was posted from 5th June 1962 to 26th October, 1962 to Dum Dum Airport and the petitioner No. 2 K.S. Takhar was posted at Dum Dum from 20th June 1961....