9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 556X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been preferred against the said judgment of acquittal, therefore, the same having probative value could be relied upon to decide the fate of the case which arose out of the same transaction and is based upon the recovery of the same weapons which were allegedly recovered from the petitioner - principle of stare decisis certainly applicable to the facts of the present case - Bail bond and surety bond furnished, stand discharged - 690 of 2002 - - - Dated:- 7-5-2009 - A.N. Jindal, J. REPRESENTED BY : Shri K.L. Chaudhary, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Shri H.P.S. Ghuman, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order (Oral)]. - This petition is directed against an order dated 16-3-2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Pakistan and was to be delivered to Sh. Irshad or Nadeem at Delhi against remuneration of Rs. 2000/- out of which she was paid Rs. 1000/- in advance and remaining amount was to be paid at Delhi after delivery. Since the petitioner had contravened the provisions of the Import Control Order No. 17/55 issued under Section 3(i) of the Import and Export Control Act read with Sections 11 and 77 of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, the complaint has been filed. 3. During pre-charge evidence, the complainant examined Sh. Y.B. Chhibber, Inspector Customs P.W. 1 and Sh. J.P. Gupta, Inspector Customs P.W. 2 and closed the evidence. 4. The petitioner was charge sheeted under Section 135 of the Customs Act and a separate case under Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the weapon was not sent to the armour. 7. In these circumstances the inference would be drawn that petitioner was not acquitted of the charges under Section 25 of the Arms Act merely on the technical grounds. Non-sealing of the arms and handing over the same without sealing to other person is a serious defect in case and leads this Court to draw the inference that it can not be said by the certainty that the weapon so produced by the Custom Officer could not be said to be the same as recovered from the petitioner. Similarly in the absence of the report of Armour, it can not be said whether the pistols so recovered were toy pistols. 8. Since the judgment D-1 passed by Additional Sessions Judge has become final as no fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
