Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: currency defined in Ramesh Khatnani vs Union Of India (Uoi) Through Collector ... on 9 July, 2007Matching Fragments
13. It was argued that the custom official are not police officials and therefore statement recorded by them under Section 108 of the Act would not be hit by Section 24 of the Evidence Act and would be admissible in evidence. Mr. Ashok Suri for whom petitioner stated that he received the gold biscuits from K.N. Babu under a baggage receipt, in his statement denied having met the aforesaid K.N. Babu and also stated that he did not know him.
14. As regards the foreign currency it was argued that Section 2(22) of the Act defines the foreign currency as goods attracting Section 110 of the Act. From the evidence of this case, it was proved that foreign currency was being purchased as smuggled goods and its unlawful acquisition was also proved. The petitioner also failed to prove about gold biscuits having foreign marks that the same were not illicitly imported or were possessed by him legally as required by Section 123 of the Act. Apart from the aforesaid articles, the manner in which 1000 U.S. Dollars were found in the cavity of a wooden chowki, secret jackets having concealed pockets and two paper slips indicating transactions in gold, were recovered and seized in the presence of the petitioner and his brother and independent witnesses with a pointed note in the panchnama, clearly proved those articles to be smuggled once. On being asked, the petitioner could not justify his possession of such seized goods or articles and could not produce any evidence about their genesis. Falsehood of the explanation later given by the petitioner stands proved if what he has stated is considered in the right perspective in that the petitioner sought to develop this story on the basis of the affidavit of Mr. Ashok Suri dated 27.12.1993 that the petitioner went to his shop on 16.12.1993 and received eight gold biscuits and that Mr. Ashok Suri handed over photocopy of the gold voucher dated 16.12.1993 to the petitioner. Had it been true, there was no reason why the petitioner should not have produced such voucher before the proper officer at the time of search and preparation of the panchnama.