Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2001 (4) TMI HC This
Issues:
Accused charged under Customs Act, 1962; Appeal against conviction and sentence; Voluntariness of confessional statements; Reliability of evidence; Revisional jurisdiction of High Court. Detailed Analysis: 1. Accusation under Customs Act, 1962: - Accused charged under Section 135(1)(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 for smuggling synthetic diamonds. 2. Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence: - Accused convicted and sentenced by Trial Court; Appeal before Additional Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu in C.A. No. 135 of 1995. - Additional Sessions Judge retained conviction but observed confessional statements were not voluntary due to coercion. 3. Voluntariness of Confessional Statements: - Accused argued confessions were obtained under duress, citing Supreme Court precedent. - Lower appellate Court found confessions not reliable due to injuries on accused and coercion. 4. Reliability of Evidence: - Petitioners contended lack of independent witnesses and voluntariness of complaint. - Court found evidence of prosecution witnesses sufficient for conviction; Cited Apex Court precedent on reliance on single eyewitness testimony. 5. Revisional Jurisdiction of High Court: - High Court's revisional jurisdiction limited to correcting miscarriage of justice; Not appellate jurisdiction. - High Court upheld lower courts' findings based on evidence and principles laid down by the Apex Court. 6. Conclusion: - High Court dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition, finding no error or illegality in lower courts' conclusions. - Upheld conviction and sentence based on evidence and principles of revisional jurisdiction. This detailed analysis covers the issues of the accusation under the Customs Act, appeal against conviction, voluntariness of confessional statements, reliability of evidence, and the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. The judgment highlights the importance of evidence, voluntariness of confessions, and the limited scope of the High Court's revisional jurisdiction in ensuring justice is upheld.
|