9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (2) TMI 161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 30.06.2011 passed by the ld. Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-01, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi on various grounds, however ld. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that, as regards sanction for prosecution, the court ignored the fact that sanction for prosecution had been filed with the complaint and that is why cognizance of offences was taken. Sanction of prosecutuion was proved and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the court could have dropped the proceedings against him. 4. I here make it clear that ld. Counsel for petitioner has not argued on other grounds, therefore, I will deal with the grounds argued above. 5. Ld. Counsel has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu vs. M.M. Rajendran, (1998) 9 SCC 268; and State of Haryana v. N.C. Tandon, 1977 SCC (Crl.) 462 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eep son of Shri Dunni Chand. However, as per record, the prosecution had failed to examine the above mentioned independent public witnesses without any sufficient reasons although they were cited as witnesses in the list. The non-examination of the abovesaid independent public punch witnesses by the prosecution was a very material lacuna in this case, therefore, benefit of doubt goes in favour of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on which cast a very strong doubt over the seizure memo/punchnama dated 01.11.1990 and was absolutely fatal to its case. 10. Thus, the ld. Trial judge has opined that benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused who is entitled to acquittal in the present case. 11. I note, the ld. Trial judge has also dealt the cases referred to by the ld. Spl. Public Prosecutor before him. I hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that ld. Trial judge has acquitted the accused not only on the ground argued but also considered the other evidence also. 14. I find no discrepancy in the impugned judgment, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the same. 15. Accordingly, the Crl. LP No.403/2011 is dismissed. 16. No order as to costs. &n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
