9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of provisions under Customs Act, 1962 and Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 for prosecution in cases of attempted smuggling of antiquities. Analysis: The judgment revolves around the interpretation of provisions under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 regarding prosecution in cases involving the attempted smuggling of antiquities. The accused individuals were charged under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act for their involvement in an attempt to smuggle antiquities out to Hongkong by falsely declaring them as handicraft items of stones. The prosecution argued that the accused should be prosecuted under both the Customs Act and the Antiquities Act. However, the accused relied on a previous decision of a learned Single Judge to support their plea for discharge under the Customs Act, contending that prosecution should only take place under the Antiquities Act for such offenses. The Court examined the decision cited by the accused and noted that the previous judgment had concluded that after the introduction of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972, the provisions of the Customs Act were applicable for confiscation and penalty, but not for prosecution in cases involving the export of antiquities. The Court highlighted that the Antiquities Act provides a separate machinery for prosecution in such matters, thereby restricting the prosecution under the Customs Act for violations related to antiquities. Based on the interpretation of the previous decision and the provisions of the relevant Acts, the Court found that the order discharging the accused from prosecution under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act was appropriate. The Court dismissed the revision petitions, upholding the decision that prosecution under the Customs Act for offenses related to antiquities smuggling was not permissible, and such cases should be prosecuted under the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act.
|
