Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.21 seconds)Emperor vs Dagadu Shetiba on 12 August, 1937
In view of these three decisions and particularly in view of the decision in Emperor v. Bagadu Shetiba 39 Bom LR 1062 : 39 Cri LJ 197 (supra) which is binding on me, it must be held that the word "transport" in Section 11-K(1) means taking the goods or carrying the goods from a point of origin to a point of destination. Looking to the use of the words "from", "into" or "within" it is obvious that either the point of origin or the point of destination or both must be within the specified area and if specified goods are transported without any voucher in that behalf as contemplated by Section 11-K(1) of the Act, if it is meant for fraudulent evasion, would be punishable under Section 135 of the Customs Act. However, on the facts found by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the point of destination was not Broach which was Within the specified area but it was Surat which was also within the specified area. The point of origin being Delhi which is within unspecified area or until the goods reached the point of destination, namely, Surat, in specified area, there would be no violation of Section 11-K(1) until the goods, namely, the silver bars, entered the specified area in which Surat is situated. Merely because en route Surat from Delhi the car carrying the silver bars passed through another specified area, namely, Broach, it does not mean that at Broach there was any violation of Section 11-K(1). The violation of Section 11-K(1) would occur if, (a) there was a continuous specified area from Broach to Surat, or, (b) after leaving the specified area of Broach the car entered the specified area in which Surat is situated. Until either of these two events occurred it cannot be said that mere presence of silver bars at Broach which is within the specified area in the course of journey from Delhi to Surat would constitute an offence because at Broach there being no point of destination in the specified area of Broach, there is neither transporting from, nor into nor within the specified area of Broach.
Section 4 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 11H in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
The Customs Act, 1962
The Essential Commodities Act, 1955
Nasu Sheikh And Ors. vs The State Of Bihar on 21 March, 1972
It was quite possible that the accused might have been warned that they had no licence to carry the paddy at any place between Samalkha Barrier and Delhi-Punjab boundary and not have proceeded further in their journey, A similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in Nasu Shaikh v. State of Bihar . In that case, cultivators in a village in Bihar had lands also in West Bengal. They were intercepted by police in Bihar at a place 75 yards from the border of West Bengal while carrying paddy without permit. When asked they said that they were taking it to another village in Bihar. The Sub-Inspector of Police who was bound to know exact location of places within his own Police Station did not give any correct information about the geographical situation. No plan was filed in the case nor any mention of distance was made in seizure memo or the first information report and on these facts, the Supreme Court held that in such cases the question of distance assumes much importance as there is possibility of accused persons changing their minds at any time between the place of seizure and the State boundary. Therefore, in absence of correct information about the geographical situation, it was not safe to convict the accused for breach of Clause 3 of the order in question.