9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Petition under Section 397 r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C against order dated 26-4-2010 passed by learned ACMM regarding complaint case filed under Sections 135(1)(b) of Customs Act and 85(1) Gold (Control) Act in the year 1988. Analysis: The petitioner filed a petition challenging the order dated 26-4-2010 passed by the learned ACMM regarding a complaint case filed in 1988 under Sections 135(1)(b) of Customs Act and 85(1) Gold (Control) Act. The Trial Court had framed charges against the accused, which were later challenged in a revision petition before the learned ASJ. The accused then filed a petition before the High Court, which directed the ACMM to reconsider the case based on specific factors. The Court highlighted that the petitioner's statement had not been recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act and that allegations of duress in a statement were significant considerations. The learned ACMM, upon rehearing the case, discharged all accused persons in the absence of substantial evidence. The judgment emphasized the lack of a panch witness for the alleged recovery, absence of ownership proof of the vehicle from which gold was allegedly recovered, and doubts regarding the voluntariness of statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The judgment noted the alleged torture on the accused by Customs officers and the circumstances casting doubt on the statements' veracity. It concluded that no conviction could be based on the available material, leading to the discharge of the accused. Upon reviewing the ACMM's order, the High Court found no infirmity and dismissed the petition, stating that there were no merits in the case. The judgment highlighted the importance of substantial evidence, voluntariness in statements, and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The decision underscored the need for a robust legal process and the requirement for concrete proof to establish guilt in criminal cases.
|
