9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Request for dispensing with pre-deposit of penalty, financial hardship of the appellant, admissibility of confessional statement, determination of penalty amount.
Analysis: 1. Request for Dispensing with Pre-deposit of Penalty: The appellant's counsel argued for dispensing with the pre-deposit of Rs. 20.00 lakhs imposed as a penalty on the applicant, contending that the confessional statement was retracted due to duress. The counsel emphasized the lack of corroborative evidence and the complaint by the applicant's wife regarding his forcible taking away. The appellant, described as a small goldsmith facing financial hardship, sought relief from the hefty penalty. 2. Financial Hardship of the Appellant: The appellant's counsel highlighted the financial constraints of the appellant, asserting that he lacked the means to pay the substantial penalty amount. It was argued that the appellant's financial situation, coupled with the absence of substantial evidence against him, warranted the dispensation of the pre-deposit requirement. 3. Admissibility of Confessional Statement: The respondent's representative opposed the request for waiving the pre-deposit, citing the recovery of gold from a car in the custody of the appellant. The representative contended that the confession aligned with typical smuggling practices and should not be dismissed based on retraction or complaints of coercion. Additionally, the respondent pointed out the appellant's reported income from house property, suggesting his ability to pay the penalty. 4. Determination of Penalty Amount: After considering both parties' arguments, the Tribunal acknowledged the recovery of foreign-marked gold biscuits from the appellant's custody. Despite the appellant's claim of duress during the statement, the Tribunal found no evidence of injury or torture. The Tribunal noted discrepancies regarding the car's ownership and the absence of physical harm. Ultimately, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 5.00 lakhs within 12 weeks, with a stay on further penalty recovery during the appeal. Non-compliance would result in the dismissal of the appeal without further notice. The judgment emphasized the importance of balancing the seriousness of smuggling offenses with the appellant's financial circumstances. The decision to reduce the penalty amount and provide a stay on further recovery reflected a nuanced approach considering the totality of evidence and the appellant's capacity to meet the financial obligations. Compliance with the deposit directive was crucial to maintaining the appeal's validity, underscoring the significance of timely adherence to the Tribunal's orders.
|
