9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Appeal against acquittal order, Interpretation of Section 140 of the Customs Act, Prosecution of person-in-charge without charging the company.
Analysis: The judgment pertains to an appeal against an appellate order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge in a case involving a charge under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondent was prosecuted for possessing smuggled goods in a shop where he was a partner-in-charge. Initially, the Metropolitan Magistrate found him guilty, but on appeal, the City Sessions Court set aside the conviction based on the interpretation of Section 140 of the Customs Act. The lower appellate court held that the liability of the person in-charge did not arise unless the company was also charged for the offense, citing an unreported decision of the Calcutta High Court. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction was set aside. The Union of India, represented by an Assistant Collector of Customs, challenged the lower appellate court's decision, arguing that the prosecution of the company was not a condition precedent to prosecuting the respondent. The appellant contended that the facts of the present case were different from the case cited and sought to distinguish the interpretations. The court examined the case against the respondent, which involved the recovery of smuggled goods from the shop and statements made by the accused under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The statements indicated the accused's involvement in purchasing smuggled goods without proper documentation and concealing them in the shop. The court analyzed the admissibility of the statements made by the accused, emphasizing that Customs Officers are not considered police officers under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, the statements were admissible as evidence, and the lower court's concern about the lack of specific endorsement on the statements was deemed unsubstantiated. The critical issue revolved around the interpretation of Section 140 of the Customs Act, which deems persons in charge of a company guilty of an offense committed by the company. The court referred to a previous decision where it was held that prosecuting the person-in-charge without charging the company was not maintainable. The court concluded that the prosecution of the person-in-charge required the company to be charged as a condition precedent, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. In summary, the judgment delves into the nuances of prosecuting individuals in charge of companies for customs offenses, emphasizing the requirement to charge the company alongside the person-in-charge as per Section 140 of the Customs Act. The court's interpretation of this provision led to the dismissal of the appeal against the acquittal order, highlighting the importance of adherence to statutory provisions in such cases.
|
