SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

1. THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONTENT OF THE SAID

NOTIFICATION PASSED ON 24TH JULY, 2018.

The second proviso to the relevant notification issued by the Central Government did not apply
to a person carrying gold with him on his body, that unless a statute clearly or by necessary
implication rules out mens rea as a constituent part of the crime, no one should be found guilty of,
an offence under the criminal law unless he has got a guilty mind.

2. THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NOTIFICATION OF THE RESERVE BANK,

DATED 24 TH JULY, 2018 DOES NOT RENDER THE RESPONDENT GUILTY.

For this reason, it is our submission that the notification of the Reserve Bank, dated 24 July, 2018
could not be deemed to have been in force and operation on 28 July 2018, when the respondent
was alleged to have committed the offence of bringing gold into India and the construction of the
notification of the Reserve Bank, dated 24 July, 2018 does not render the respondent guilty.

3. THE GOLD THAT THE RESPONDENT CARRIED WAS HIS PERSONAL LUGGAGE
AND NOT CARGO.

It is clear from the evidence that the manifest for transit discloses only such goods as are
unaccompanied baggage and that accompanied baggage is never manifested as cargo manifest the
transit manifest for cargo can obviously not mention goods which are on the person of a passenger.
the present one in which the permitted article is carried on person, for such an article cannot
possibly be declared in the manifest for transit as same bottom, cargo or as transshipment cargo.

4. THE RESPONDEDNT HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE NOTIFICATION BY RBI

The observations contained in the judgment would apply aptly to the current case since, there is
no provision either in the Customs Act or in the Reserve Bank of India Act prescribing the mode
by which a permission granted by the Reserve Bank shall be published or promulgated. Even a
bare publication of the order in the official Gazette was not enough to fix its knowledge on the
accused unless there was evidence to show that the person making the order considered the
particular form of publication as being best adapted for informing the persons whom the order
concerns