9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 469X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act and sentenced to undergo RI for three years and to pay a line of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of line, to further undergo RI for three months. 3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that complaint under Sections 135 and 135-A of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short 'the Act') was instituted by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, Attari Rail, Amritsar, against Mohd. Akram and Tarsem Chand on the allegation that on 11-2-1988, Tarsem Chand was selling chana bhatura on his rehri at platform No. 1 at L.C.S. Attari Rail. Uttam Chand Sharma, Superintendent Customs, along with Sharanjit Singh, while on general supervision at platform No. 1, L.C.S. Attari Rail, noticed some hand bag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11-2-1988 that recovered articles were owned by him and same were to be handed over to one Rafiq in Pakistan, who was to give him Rs. 11,400/- as commission for exporting seized goods illegally. After obtaining sanction, complaint was instituted. Mohd. Akram was declared proclaimed offender. 4. In pre-charge evidence, Sharanjit Singh, Inspector Customs appeared as PW1 and R.K. Duggal as PW2. 5. Accused was charged under Sections 135 and 135-A of the Act, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 6. After charge, prosecution again produced Sharanjit Singh (PW1) and R.K. Duggal (PW2) for further cross-examination. Both witnesses fully supported the prosecution story. 7. PW3 Vijay Kumar Seth stated that recovered articles alter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... possession of recovered articles. Mohd. Akram and Jamsed Ali were the owners of recovered articles. Petitioner was to receive only Rs. 1500/- to hand over the recovered articles to the above said persons at the time of departure of the train. Petitioner had no knowledge about the contents of the bags/envelopes. If the Court is of the opinion that the petitioner had the conscious possession of the recovered articles, then lenient view may be taken. Petitioner has already undergone one year and nine months. Occurrence was in the month of February, 1988. At that time, petitioner was the only bread winner of his family and belongs to a poor family. 17. Learned State counsel argued that no doubt occurrence was in the month of February, 1988. P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
