AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (7) TMI 425
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 711/94, which has been disposed of by an order of even date today. The facts of the said case have been elaborately set out in the said order. Hence, the same are not repeated herein. Insofar as the present applicant is concerned, he comes into the picture at the stage when the applicants of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 711/94 make an exit. Insofar as the present applicant is concerned, the raid on the premises of Shri Laxmandas Vishandas Trilokani had been conducted under the instructions of the present applicant and the sealed packet containing the seized goods had been handed over to him. 3. According to the applicant who was working as Superintendent of Central Excise (Prevention) Branch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Inspectors, who came back to the office of the Assistant Collector of Customs with the packet of seized goods and handed it over to the Cashier on the same day to keep the same in the Government Treasury (Safe), who is also a "Custodian" within the meaning of the instructions/guidelines of the Board. The statement of the Cashier recorded during the course of investigation reveals that on receipt of packet of seized goods, he passed a receipt to the Inspector Shri J.H. Trivedi. Thereafter, Shri J.H. Trivedi had taken delivery of the said packet of seized goods from the Cashier by giving back the receipt so as to keep the said packet in the locker of the bank and the Cashier thereafter, destroyed the receipt. It is pointed out that the locke....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that in these circumstances, the applicant who had retained the seized packet for a period of more than one month, is certainly the person who could have tampered with the packet in question. It was submitted that it was only during that period, that the packet in question could have been tampered with, hence, the say of the applicant that he had not handled the packet in question at any point of time cannot be accepted and no intervention is warranted at the hands of this Court. 8. Mr. M.R. Mengdey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has adopted the submissions made by the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel. 9. As can be seen from the First Information Report in question, the applicant herein was not arraigned as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d been opened. The packet was in a totally sealed condition. In the circumstances, it is not possible to state as to how the muddamal came to be changed from the gold pieces to the brass weight. Considering the fact that the brass weight belonged to Shri Laxmandas, it is he who should have been able to explain as to under what circumstances, a brass weight belonging to him had found its way into the sealed packet. However, insofar as the applicant is concerned, there is nothing to link him with the offence in question. Besides, it appears that when the packet was handed over to the Range Superintendent on 22-2-84 he did not find any difference in the description in the inventory and the physical condition of the packet before keeping it in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated goods." It is also averred that special treasury/safe is kept in the office of the Assistant Customs Collector, Junagadh to store Government cash and valuables, which can be operated only by the Administrative Officer and the Cashier jointly by applying their keys simultaneously, which are in their custody. The Cashier in his statement has stated that the packet was handed over to him on 11-1-84 in the evening by the applicant in the presence of another officer and that from 11-1-84 after he took custody of the packet, no officer had asked for the same till 22-2-84. That the applicant was neither responsible nor liable to maintain the seized goods in safe and proper condition. However, the said averments have not been controverted by t....