9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the sanction for prosecution. 2. Whether the accused committed the offense as alleged. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Sanction for Prosecution: The primary issue in this case was whether there was a valid sanction for prosecuting the accused under Section 135(1)(a)(i) of the Customs Act. The sanction order, Ex. P-10, was scrutinized to determine if the sanctioning authority had applied its mind to the facts and materials of the case. The prosecution argued that the Additional Collector of Customs had considered all relevant records and materials before granting the sanction. The sanction order stated, "adequate grounds exist for prosecuting Tey Teck Seng," indicating that the authority had reviewed the case records. However, the defense contended that the sanctioning authority had not applied its mind, as the particulars of the records placed before the authority were not mentioned in the sanction order or its annexure. It was argued that essential exhibits such as the show cause notice, adjudication proceedings, and the accused's replies were not placed before the sanctioning authority. The court found that the prosecution had not placed all relevant materials before the sanctioning authority. The complaint was drafted even before the sanction was granted, which was deemed irregular and illegal. This preemptive drafting suggested a preconceived intent to prosecute, irrespective of whether a valid sanction would be accorded. Consequently, the court upheld the lower court's finding that the sanction was invalid. 2. Whether the Accused Committed the Offense: The second issue was whether the accused had committed the offense of smuggling gold as alleged by the prosecution. The prosecution presented evidence including the seizure of gold biscuits from the accused, the declaration card, and the mahazar for the seizure. The defense challenged the prosecution's evidence, particularly the valuation of the gold biscuits. The prosecution claimed the value was Rs. 1,02,630/-, while the adjudication proceedings and show cause notice valued the gold at Rs. 60,645/-. The court found the prosecution's valuation to be exaggerated, likely to ensure the accused could be punished under the Customs Act, which requires the value of the seized goods to exceed Rs. 1,00,000/- for certain penalties. The court also noted discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence, such as the accused's statement being written by a friend and the lack of proof that the seized articles were gold. Despite these issues, the court acknowledged that the accused had brought gold bars from a foreign country, as evidenced by the valid adjudication and the imposition of a penalty. Conclusion: The court concluded that there was no valid sanction for prosecution, and the prosecution's evidence was not sufficient to prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The lower court's order of acquittal was confirmed, and the appeal was dismissed.
|
