9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 419X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same is admissible in evidence. Though the High Court is not required to act as a court of appeal but at the same time, it is the duty of the court to correct manifest illegality resulting in gross miscarriage of justice. The High Court is not required to interfere in the concurrent finding of facts. This Court is of the considered opinion that the present case is not a fit case where the revisional jurisdiction is required to be exercised on the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the Courts below. This Court does not find any procedural irregularity, overlooking of material evidence, misreading of the same or miscarriage of justice. There is no jurisdictional error in the judgments passed by the Courts below. Neither there is an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 29.10.2007, the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner. 2. Factual matrix, as emerges from the record, is that the Customs filed a complaint against the petitioner/accused for offences punishable under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. It was alleged that on the basis of an information, in the early hours of 23.01.1995, the petitioner was intercepted near the pre-paid taxi counter, outside the arrival hall of IGI Airport. The petitioner had arrived from Dubai from flight No.EK-702. In the presence of two independent witnesses, the petitioner was enquired who admitted that he was carrying smuggled gold concealed in his rectum as well as batterie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter conclusion of prosecution evidence, the statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he had claimed innocence. The petitioner opted to lead defence evidence, but he did not adduce any defence evidence. The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate vide judgment dated 27.02.2002 held the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under Section 132/135(1)(a) of the Customs Act and convicted him for the said offences. The order on sentence was passed on 02.03.2002. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner filed criminal appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No.12/2002. The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 29.10.2007 upheld the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner. 6. Feeling agg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Preventive department and two independent witnesses intercepted the petitioner in the early hours of 23.01.1995 near the pre-paid taxi counter outside the arrival hall of IGI Airport, New Delhi; petitioner had arrived from Dubai by flight No.EK-702; on query, the petitioner admitted that he was carrying smuggled gold concealed in his rectum as well as number of other articles in his baggage such as batteries of lamp, emergency light, lunch boxes etc.; petitioner was escorted to Customs House; petitioner told that he would ease out the gold in the customs house itself; after about 15 minutes, petitioner eased out one rectangular shaped object wrapped with black tape; on examination, it was found to contain 2 gold biscuits of 10 tolas each; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... house; statement of petitioner was recorded in his presence. 12. Similarly, PW2 Sh. S.M. Aggarwal, Customs Superintendent (Preventive), New Customs House stated that on 23.01.1985, petitioner appeared before him and tendered his voluntary statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 Ex.PW2/A; on the same day, petitioner tendered his another statement Ex.PW2/B; he issued summons Ex.PW2/C on 23.01.1995 to the petitioner; on 21.02.1995, he issued summons Ex.PW2/D to Sh. Ganda Ram in pursuance of which, he tendered his statement Ex.PW2/E. 13. During cross-examination, PW2 denied that the petitioner was forced to make some involuntary statement and also to sign on certain already written papers. 14. There is enough evidence on r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jurisdiction can be invoked to correct the wrong appreciation of evidence. Though the High Court is not required to act as a court of appeal but at the same time, it is the duty of the court to correct manifest illegality resulting in gross miscarriage of justice. The High Court is not required to interfere in the concurrent finding of facts. This Court is of the considered opinion that the present case is not a fit case where the revisional jurisdiction is required to be exercised on the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the Courts below. 17. This Court does not find any procedural irregularity, overlooking of material evidence, misreading of the same or miscarriage of justice. There is no jurisdictional error in the judgments pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
