9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (6) TMI 417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and personal penalty of Rs. 10,000/-, Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- on appellants No. 2, No. 1 and No. 4 was imposed under Section 112 of the Act. The vehicle was also confiscated under Section 115 with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation amounting to Rs. 15,000/-. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on the basis of information the officers of Jangipur Customs intercepted a lorry bearing Registration No. WB-57/0190 near Sainthia at about 0800 hrs. on 26-6-1998 and found to contain raw silk yarn of foreign origin. One man named Md. Mohiuddin Mollah and the driver Laksman Sarkar both of Islampur who were present in the lorry were intercepted. On prelimi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w-up action was conducted by Jangipur Customs and the residential premises of Md. Mohiuddin Mollah Laksman Sarkar and Haider Ali was searched. Nothing incriminating was recovered from those residential premises. Md. Haider Ali was also summoned to appear before the Supdt. of Customs, Jangipur on 30-9-1998 to clarify his position in his defence for being implicated by Md. Mohiuddin Mollah, but he failed to appear. Show Cause Notices were issued to all the appellants on 10-12-1998. 4. Based on the above investigations the proceedings were drawn up by taking into consideration the circumstantial and material evidence on record and the impugned order was passed by the adjudicating authority. 5. Being aggrieved by the impugned order the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndestinely brought into the country from Bangladesh through unauthorised routes in contravention of provisions of Customs Act, 1962, rendering the same liable for confiscation, and hence the persons involved in the case of seizure liable to penal action under the Act. 7. The appellant Laksman Sarkar is the driver of the lorry carrying the impugned goods which are liable for confiscation as discussed supra. Being the driver of the lorry he should have possessed all sorts of covering documents of the goods which he carried by means of lorry. The fact clearly indicates that he has engaged himself in the transportation of goods having full knowledge of the contraband nature of the goods, otherwise he would have insisted on documents with rega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icle, the lower authority was justified in confiscating the impugned vehicle under Section 115 of the Act. As such the option extended to the appellant to redeem the same in lieu of confiscation on payment of Redemption Fine amounting to Rs. 15,000/- is justified. 10. In this case the only evidence against appellant no. 2 i.e. Haider Ali is the statement of appellant no. 1. i.e. Md. Mohiuddin Mollah wherein he had stated that the owner of the goods happens to be Md. Haider Ali. This statement is of a very general nature. There is no independent corroboration of his statement. The statement of the co-accused without being supported by any corroborative evidence is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant. The appellant has relied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
