9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to framing of charge under Section 135 of the Customs Act; Tenability of petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India; Transfer of ownership of vessel and implications on criminal prosecution; Applicability of judgments by Delhi High Court and CEGAT; Prima facie suspicion on transfer of vessel; Failure to locate purported buyer Dalip Singh. Analysis: The petitioner, accused No. 20 in a complaint case under Section 135 of the Customs Act, challenged the framing of charge by filing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the Sessions Judge's order. The respondent raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the petition, contending that it was a second revision. However, the petitioner argued that subsequent developments, including an order by CEGAT, justified the challenge. The court rejected the preliminary objection, allowing the petition to proceed. Regarding the merits, the petitioner claimed to have transferred ownership of the vessel before the raid, supported by records showing the change in ownership duly noted by the customs department. CEGAT's order also acknowledged this transfer. The petitioner cited a Delhi High Court judgment to argue that if departmental authorities disbelieve facts, courts can intervene. However, the court noted that the petitioner's statement to customs authorities raised suspicion. The statement indicated a questionable transfer to a person, Dalip Singh, whom the customs could not locate, casting doubt on the genuineness of the transaction. The court highlighted discrepancies in the petitioner's claims, such as the purported sale to Anthony and subsequent transfer to Dalip Singh. The inability to locate or produce Dalip Singh, coupled with the petitioner's evasive responses, further undermined the credibility of the transfer. Ultimately, the court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, directing the trial court to proceed expeditiously with the trial.
|
