9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Conviction under Section 5 of the Imports & Exports (Control) Act and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code based on a prosecution case involving smuggling of prohibited articles without the required license and conspiracy between the accused. Analysis: The judgment involves the conviction of two appellants under Section 5 of the Imports & Exports (Control) Act and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution's case revolved around the appellants, one being a cabin boy and the other a sergeant, being found with a suitcase containing prohibited items like whisky, brandy, and synthetic stones. The prosecution alleged that the import of these items required a license from the Central Government, which the appellants did not possess. Additionally, it was claimed that the appellants were part of a conspiracy with another individual to smuggle these items into India. The appellants pleaded not guilty, with one claiming ignorance about the suitcase's contents and the other stating he was unaware of the contents while on duty. The learned Magistrate believed the prosecution witnesses' accounts regarding the search and the statements made by the appellants. However, the judgment lacked detailed findings on the preliminary facts, making it difficult for the appellate court to understand the basis of the decision. During the appeal, arguments were presented challenging the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. An interesting point raised was the discrepancy in the timing of the search witnesses' accounts, which raised doubts about the sequence of events. Despite this, the evidence of the search witnesses regarding the contents of the suitcase was deemed credible, indicating the presence of prohibited items. The judgment highlighted a crucial element for proving the offense under the Imports & Exports (Control) Act, which was establishing that the items were being brought into India from outside the country. However, there was a lack of evidence to demonstrate that the ship had arrived from a foreign port, casting doubt on the origin of the smuggled items. This absence of crucial evidence led to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove the case against the appellants under the said Act. In light of the above analysis, the appeals were allowed, the convictions were set aside, and both appellants were acquitted of the charges. Consequently, appellant Arthur Almeida was ordered to be released, and appellant Sergeant R.S. Hottinger was discharged from the bail bond.
|
