2020 (3) TMI 1217 - HC - Customs

Smuggling - Gold Bars - acquittal of accused - offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 85 of the Gold Control Act, 1968 - HELD THAT - The trial court has held that the accused no.12 is entitled to acquittal as he is arraigned only because of the confessional statement of the co-accused. The trial court in the impugned judgment has placed reliance on the aforesaid judgment and in the considered opinion of this Court, such reliance cannot be said to be misplaced, which is rendered in the case of the co-accused. The present accused no.14 has only been arraigned because of the statement of the co-accused no.12, who has been acquitted by the trial court - The confession recorded of the accused no.1 vide Exh.100 reveals that the same does not meet with the parameters of Section 26 of the Evidence Act, 1872. It is also the come on record that the identity of the accused no.14 is not established and he has only been arraigned by the name of Kasam on the statement of the co-accused. Since the accused no.14 has only been arraigned as an accused on the confession of the co-accused, as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of MOHAMMED FASRIN VERSUS STATE REP. BY THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER 2019 (9) TMI 830 - SUPREME COURT , the discharge of the accused no.14 cannot be disturbed. The present revision application fails.

Summary

Issues:
Seeking quashing of judgment discharging accused in a criminal case involving gold smuggling.

Analysis:
1. Background: A criminal complaint was filed under Customs Act and Gold Control Act against 15 accused, including respondent nos. 2 and 3, after the seizure of a country craft containing contraband gold bars.

2. Discharge of Accused: The trial court discharged accused nos. 11 and 14, leading to the present revision application seeking to set aside the discharge of accused no. 14 as erroneous.

3. Applicant's Arguments: The applicant's advocate argued that the trial court erred in discharging accused no. 14, citing confessions of co-accused naming him and lack of evidence supporting the discharge decision.

4. Respondent's Defense: The respondent's advocate contended that the case relied heavily on an extra-judicial confession and failed to establish the identity of accused no. 14, supporting the trial court's decision.

5. Court's Evaluation: The court reviewed previous judgments and found that accused no. 14 was arraigned based on statements of co-accused, with insufficient evidence to establish his identity or involvement in the crime.

6. Legal Precedent: Citing a Supreme Court case, the court emphasized the need for voluntary confessions and corroborative evidence, concluding that the discharge of accused no. 14 was justified.

7. Judgment: The court dismissed the revision application, upholding the trial court's decision to discharge accused no. 14, and ordered the record to be sent back to the trial court for further proceedings.