9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Abetment of smuggling 2. Voluntariness of confessional statement 3. Time-bar for filing the appeal 4. Precedential value of criminal court's acquittal Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Abetment of Smuggling: The appellant was charged with abetting the smuggling of 240 silver bars. The Commissioner's order did not provide specific findings on how the appellant was involved in the smuggling or abetting the act. The appellant contended that there was no evidence against him implicating him in the act of smuggling. He was arrested while meeting someone in a lodge room, and his statement was forcibly taken under duress. 2. Voluntariness of Confessional Statement: The appellant retracted his confessional statement before the Special Magistrate, alleging it was obtained under duress and after being beaten. The Special Magistrate directed medical treatment for the appellant, supporting the claim of coercion. The Commissioner's order lacked corroborative evidence independent of the appellant's confession to hold him responsible for abetting the smuggling of silver bars. 3. Time-bar for Filing the Appeal: The learned SDR raised a preliminary objection that the appeal was not filed within the prescribed time. However, the appellant argued that he was served with the order on 12-9-2005 and filed the appeal on 22-9-2005, within three months from receipt of the letter. The Commissioner's letter dated 9-9-2005 indicated that the original order was returned undelivered by postal authorities, and there was no proof of service of the order. Thus, the appeal was considered filed within the period of limitation. 4. Precedential Value of Criminal Court's Acquittal: The appellant was acquitted by the Special Judge for Economic Offences on 27-2-2001, as there was no involvement in the act of smuggling. The Chennai bench ruling in the case of S. Duraiappa & Others v. CC was cited, emphasizing that the judgment of acquittal by a criminal court has precedential value and should be considered. The criminal court's acquittal was based on merits after evaluating all evidence, and the findings of the criminal court should influence the tribunal's decision. The Commissioner's order imposing a penalty was set aside due to the lack of evidence and in light of the criminal court's acquittal. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, and the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed on the appellant was set aside. The order was not maintainable in law due to the lack of evidence and the precedential value of the criminal court's acquittal. The appellant was granted consequential relief, if any.
|
