9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 1023X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... toms as both appeal and revision have arisen out of the same judgment and incident. For convenience facts are being taken from Criminal Appeal No. S.696 SB of 1997 titled as Assistant Collector, Customs v. State of Punjab. 2. Ajit Pal Singh Sethi and Daljit Singh-accused have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a line of Rs. 10,000/- each. In default thereof, further rigorous imprisonment for one year in a case under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short the Act). 3. The facts of the prosecution case, in brief, are that on 4-5-1992 the officials of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (Regional Unit) Amritsar, comprising of S.K. Luthra, Senior Intelligence Officer, Buta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re vansalies were recovered. When the same were opened, the same revealed 328 more gold biscuits each weighing 10 tolas bearing foreign marking duly wrapped in similar adhesive tapes. Therefore, in all 728 gold biscuits valued at Rs. 3,65,00,464/- were recovered and the same were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 in consequence of failure of Ajit Pal Singh Sethi and Daljit Singh to produce any documentary evidence regarding their lawful importation acquisition/possession/transportation. The above-mentioned jeep valued at Rs. 2,00,000/- was also taken into possession under Section 115 of the said Act along with the registration book and insurance cover note. 4. Statements of Ajit Pal Singh Sethi were recorded on 4-5-199 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stom Inspector (PW-3), V.K. Sharma, Intelligence Officer, DRI (PW-4), Ghansham Dass, goldsmith (PW-5), Vijay Kumar, goldsmith (PW-6) and closed the evidence. 6. Charges under Section 135 of the Act were served upon the accused to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Therefore, the prosecution witnesses were recalled for further cross-examination. Thereafter, the complainant closed its evidence. 7. In their statements recorded under Section 313 of Cr. P.C., the accused denied all the allegations as incorrect and pleaded that they have been falsely involved in this case. Accused Ajit Pal Singh Sethi has stated that he was taken away from his house by the officials of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence on 4-5-19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r appreciating the evidence convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants vide judgment and order dated 10-3-1997 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, as aforesaid whereas acquitted accused Amrik Singh @ Chamku and Balwinder Singh alias Billa. 10. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order dated 10-3-1997, accused-Ajitpal Singh Sethi and Daljit Singh preferred appeal before ld. Sessions Judge, Amritsar. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide judgment dated 24-5-1997 dismissed the appeal. 11. Still feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment dated 24-5-1997 and dated 10-3-1997, the present revision petition has been directed by the accused whereas the Union of India has prefer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arises whether the admission of co-accused under Section 108 of the Customs Act can be the basis of conviction of other co-accused. The learned trial Court has rightly held that statement of co-accused under Section 108 of the Act against the co-accused is a weak type of evidence and conviction of co-accused cannot be based on the uncorroborated statement of co-accused. Counsel for the appellant (Customs) is fair enough to concede that there is no corroborative evidence against Amrik Singh @ Chamku and Balwinder Singh for warranting their conviction under Section 135 of the Customs Act except statements of co-accused under Section 108 of Customs Act. 18. Consequently, the appeal preferred by the Customs Department stands dismissed bei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... B. Jain's case (supra). 21. Counsel for the Customs Department has opposed the prayer. 22. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by both the sides regarding quantum of sentence. 23. As per record of Appellate Court, the petitioners/revisionists remained in custody from 24-5-1997 till 7-8-1997 when they were granted concession of bail by this Court in the present revision petition. The occurrence relates to more than 21 years and since then petitioners are undergoing the agony of trial. Even according to the case of the prosecution, the petitioners were simply carriers for payment of some amount. The Hon'ble Apex Court in authority Jeevraj B. Jain's case (supra) direct the accused to pay a f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
