9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (5) TMI 476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... des. 2. The applicant filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Customs whereby a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs was imposed under Section 112 of Customs Act. The brief facts of the case are that on 6-1-96 a truck was intercepted by the Customs officers and from the truck a total 39,850 Kgs. of Heroin of Pakistan origin was recovered. Three persons viz. Ajaib Singh, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant was acquitted on the ground that there was no evidence against the appellant. The contention of the appellant is that statement recorded by the Customs officers was under duress as the appellant was in the custody of the Customs at that time. 4. The contention of the appellant is also that due to recovery of heroin he had undergone an imprisonment of seven years before acquittal by the H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a. Admittedly, he was not nabbed at the spot along with his three co-accused, namely Ajaib Singh, Gurmej Singh and Satnam Singh. No recovery had been effected from him. He was subsequently arrested through warrants of arrest obtained from the concerned Court after his co-accused had made statements before the customs officials showing his involvement along with them. So far as the statements dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the statement was recorded under duress, the appellant under the custody of Customs authority. This fact was noticed by the Hon ble High Court and the Hon ble High Court held that as the present appellant was in custody of Customs authority, the possibility of duress or coercion at the hands of the Customs officials cannot be ruled out. Beyond this, the prosecution has no evidence worth the n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
