9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Criminal revision against the judgment reducing the sentence - Conviction based on evidence of silver smuggling - Admissibility of statement made before Custom Officer - Analysis of reasons for maintaining conviction Issue 1: Criminal revision against the judgment reducing the sentence The judgment pertains to a criminal revision filed against a lower court's decision to reduce the petitioner's sentence from two and a half years to two years. The High Court reviewed the grounds of revision but found the lower courts' reasons for maintaining the conviction to be correct, providing no assistance to the petitioner. Consequently, the conviction was upheld by the High Court. Issue 2: Conviction based on evidence of silver smuggling The case involved a raid by Customs Staff resulting in the discovery of silver pieces hidden in an Ambassador car and a motorbike. The total silver recovered weighed 101.080 kg worth Rs. 3,03,240/-. The conviction was maintained based on the appellant's connection to the prohibited goods, as per sections 135A and 138-A of the Customs Act. The court emphasized that the statement made by the appellant before the Custom Officer was admissible as evidence. The witnesses' testimonies supported the prosecution's case, and the confessional statement of the accused further solidified the case against him. Issue 3: Admissibility of statement made before Custom Officer The judgment clarified that statements made before a Custom Officer, as in this case, are not barred by Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act. The statement recorded by Inspector Vijay Bahadur Singh was crucial in establishing the petitioner's involvement in smuggling silver. The court found the evidence presented, including the recovery of silver from different locations, to be sufficient in proving the charges against the petitioner. Issue 4: Analysis of reasons for maintaining conviction The appellate court's reasons for upholding the conviction focused on the wide interpretation of "concerned in dealing with prohibited goods" under the Customs Act. Sections 135A and 138-A were cited to support the appellant's connection to the offense. Additionally, the judgment referenced the precedent set by the Supreme Court regarding the admissibility of statements made to Customs Officers. The court highlighted the importance of witness testimonies and the appellant's confessional statement in establishing guilt. Ultimately, the High Court modified the sentence, reducing it to one year, considering the lengthy duration of the criminal proceedings faced by the petitioner. In conclusion, the High Court upheld the conviction in the criminal revision, emphasizing the admissibility of the statement made before the Custom Officer and the sufficiency of evidence in proving the charges of silver smuggling against the petitioner. The modification of the sentence to one year was deemed appropriate in light of the prolonged legal proceedings endured by the petitioner.
|
