2017 (2) TMI 88 - HC - Customs

Suspension of sentence and bail - Held that - the trial court has rendered an independent judgment. The evidence and findings are identical as all the three accused including the present appellant were accused of carrying narcotic substance and were intercepted on their way out of India at the airport and it is on the common evidence that was gathered against the appellant separate case was registered against the accused. In view of this Court having acquitted the other accused who stood on the same footing as the present appellant, the present appeal is allowed and disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal, suspension of sentence and bail, acquittal based on previous judgments

The judgment by the High Court of Karnataka addressed the issue of a delay of 1088 days in filing the appeal, which was condoned. The appellant requested suspension of sentence and bail. It was highlighted that the appellant, along with two others, had their appeals entertained by the Court and were acquitted based on the evidence. The prosecution intended to rely on the same evidence against the present appellant, but since the previous judgment had set aside the impugned judgment after analyzing the evidence and reasoning of the court below, the benefit of the said judgment was extended to the present appellant, leading to the appeal being allowed.

The respondent's counsel raised objections regarding the delay in filing the appeal and argued that the judgment of the Court was not final, thus the benefit extended to the present appellant might be premature. However, it was noted that the trial court had rendered an independent judgment in the present appellant's case. The evidence and findings were identical for all three accused individuals, including the present appellant, who were intercepted carrying a narcotic substance at the airport. As the Court had acquitted the other accused who were in the same situation as the present appellant, the present appeal was allowed and disposed of in accordance with the judgment in the related case. Consequently, the appellant was set at liberty, the judgment of the court below was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. Instructions were given to communicate the order to the jail authorities for immediate compliance, and the appellant's impounded passport was to be released.

In conclusion, the judgment dealt with the issues of delay in filing the appeal, suspension of sentence and bail, and the acquittal of the appellant based on previous judgments. The decision was made after considering the evidence, reasoning, and previous judgments related to the case, ultimately leading to the appellant being acquitted and granted relief.