9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (2) TMI 727 - HC - CustomsQuantum of punishment - whether Assistant Collector of Customs (P) could prefer an Appeal against inadequacy sentence - Held that - The Code of Criminal Procedure does not contemplate an Appeal being filed unless specifically provided in the Code. Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for Appeal by the State or Union Government against sentence. Sub-section (2) provides that in case of conviction on a prosecution launched by an agency employed to make investigation under the Central Government, the Central Government may direct the learned Spl. P.P. to prefer an Appeal - Following decision of Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras v. V. Krishnamoorthy 1997 (2) TMI 103 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - Decided against appellant.
Issues:
1. Adequacy of sentence imposed on the Assistant Collector of Customs. 2. Jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector to file an appeal against the sentence. 3. Interpretation of Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding appeals by the State or Union Government. 4. Precedent set by the Supreme Court in Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. V. Krishnamoorthy. Analysis: 1. The judgment deals with an appeal filed by an Assistant Collector of Customs challenging the adequacy of the sentence of rigorous imprisonment and a fine imposed on them for offenses under various sections of the Customs Act, Import & Export (Control) Act, and Gold (Control) Act. The appellant contested the sentence of two months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 15,000 as being inadequate. 2. The court examined the jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to file an appeal against the sentence imposed. It was highlighted that the Code of Criminal Procedure does not allow for an appeal to be filed unless specifically provided for. Section 377 of the Code permits appeals by the State or Union Government against a sentence. However, it was noted that in cases where the prosecution is initiated by an agency employed by the Central Government, the Central Government may direct the Special Public Prosecutor to prefer an appeal. The court referred to a Supreme Court decision in Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. V. Krishnamoorthy, where it was held that the Assistant Collector of Customs does not have the authority to file an appeal against an inadequate sentence. 3. The interpretation of Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was crucial in determining the jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector to file the appeal. The court emphasized that the law does not permit the Assistant Collector to challenge the sentence independently. The section allows for appeals by the State or Union Government, with specific provisions for cases where the prosecution is conducted by a Central Government agency. 4. The judgment relied on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. V. Krishnamoorthy to dismiss the appeal as incompetent. The court followed the legal principle established in the Supreme Court decision, which clarified that appeals against sentences by certain officials, including Assistant Collectors, are not permissible. As a result, the Criminal Appeal filed by the Assistant Collector of Customs was dismissed based on the lack of jurisdiction to challenge the sentence.
|
