1987 (8) TMI 103 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Recovery of gold bars by customs officers from accused individuals.
2. Trial court's conviction and sentencing of the accused under Customs Act and Gold Control Act.
3. Appeal filed by the accused before the Sessions Judge and subsequent dismissal.
4. Imposition of cost/compensation on the accused by the trial court.
5. Legal arguments regarding the imposition of cost/compensation on the accused.
6. Revision petition challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge.

Analysis:

The judgment revolves around the recovery of gold bars by customs officers from the accused individuals at a specific location in Delhi. The accused were apprehended at the Delhi Railway Station with the gold bars, and incriminating documents were also seized during the search. The accused were unable to provide evidence of owning the gold, leading to its seizure under Section 110 of the Customs Act.

The trial court found both accused guilty under Section 135(l)(b) of the Customs Act and Section 85(ii) of the Gold Control Act. One accused, being a minor, was given probation and directed to maintain good behavior for three years, while the other accused was sentenced to three years of simple imprisonment and a fine under the Gold Control Act.

The accused filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge, which was dismissed ex parte due to delays and absconding by the accused. The revision petition was filed challenging the dismissal, primarily contesting the imposition of cost/compensation on the accused by the trial court.

The legal arguments focused on the provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the imposition of cost/compensation on the accused. The court analyzed Section 357 of the Code and concluded that the provision does not apply to the case at hand, rendering the imposition of cost/compensation by the trial court unjustified and illegal.

Considering the arguments presented and the facts of the case, the court accepted the revision petition and set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, emphasizing the lack of legal basis for imposing cost/compensation on the accused individuals.