9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (2) TMI 161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - CRL.L.P.No. 403/2011 - - - Dated:- 7-2-2012 - Suresh Kait, J. Satish Aggarwala, Spl. PP with Sushil Kaushik and Kushboo Garg, Advs. for the Petitioner Suresh Kait, J 1. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner has assailed the judgment 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 exhibited as Ex.PW1/B and that is why the charge had been framed. 2. Mr. Satish Aggarwa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L.D. Rajput, who allegedly seized the recovery (gold biscuits and Indian currency) from the accused in the presence of two independent witnesses vide punchnama dated 01.11.1990, which has been proved as Exh. PW2/A, shows that the said punchnama dated 01.11.1990 was prepared in the presence of two independent punch witnesses, i.e., Shri Rajesh son of Shri Balbir Chand and Shri Pradeep 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, b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e been relevant if the ld. Trial judge had discharged the accused at the initial stage on the prosecution sanction or acquitted the accused only on the ground of the sanction is not proved. 13. I find that the ld. Trial judge while recording his opinion, has recorded that in view of the above said discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt, on the charge against the accused, and therefore, the petitioner/accused was acquitted from the charges under Section 135(1)(b) of the 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, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
