Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (0.29 seconds)
Ramdhani vs Patna-Prev on 28 January, 2025 cites

State Of Maharashtra vs Prithviraj Pokhraj Jain on 13 June, 1973

"19. The burden was, therefore, on the prosecution to prove that the goods were smuggled. For this the prosecution relied upon the evidence of Hebbar who stated that he believed the goods to be smuggled, because watches and watch straps were of foreign 34 Appeal No.: C/76175, 76176, 76177/2024-DB origin, the import of which was heavily restricted and prohibited and they were found in huge quantity. The foreign origin of the watches is tried to be shown from the foreign markings on the watches. The question whether the foreign markings of goods can be treated as admissible in evidence was considered by Naik J. in Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1966, decided on 22nd December, 1966. Among the property involved in that case were some gold slabs. The slabs bore the marking "Johnson Mathey 9990 London". Naik J. observed in his judgment that the markings do not speak for themselves and that evidence would be hearsay evidence. There was nothing to indicate that the markings were really done by Johnson Mathey in London. No presumption can arise in regard to the markings, unless there is evidence to show that those markings were made by a particular company in the ordinary course of business.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next