9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 526X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p to 14.1.1999, there is mention of the appellant on the T.C. and thus, the consignment did relate to him. He received the consignment as he was to take delivery of the consignment, as he had received phone calls regarding this. These phone calls were received by his Clerks Amit Taneja, Janak Raj, and some were received by him. Statements made under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 coupled with the statements of the prosecution witnesses which have found corroboration inter-se, the guilt of the appellant is proved beyond a reasonable doubt - no infirmity in the judgement of the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge in convicting the appellant - appeal disposed off - decided against appellant. - Criminal Appeal No. 150 OF 2010 - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... As per the prosecution, Customs Authorities had received a secret information on 15.01.1999 that a consignment of dry fruits was received, which had the marking of 'AB', contained some narcotics as well. This information was received by one Shruti Kant Mahajan, Inspector (Customs) (PW-3). He passed on this information to his Superintendent Mr. P. S. Vist (PW-5). On receiving this information, two independent witnesses, viz., Balbir Singh and Kulwant Singh were summoned and an offer of search was made to the appellant under Section 50 of the Act as to whether he wanted the consignment to be searched in the presence of Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. The appellant gave his consent and expressed his willingness to be searched before a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and, therefore, for the consignment in question, he could not be held responsible. This argument was considered by the Sessions Court as well as the High Court and was rejected after finding that M/s. AG Trading Company, Delhi, was a non-existing company and fake name was used for the import of the said consignment. Conduct of the appellant was also found to be suspicious inasmuch as in his first statement, (Exhibit PF) given under Section 108 of the Customs Act on 15.01.1999, the appellant had stated that as the consignee was not making the payment of outstanding dues of ₹ 75,000/- payable to the appellant, the appellant was not willing to get the consignment released initially. However, in the second statement, recorded on 20.01.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.1999, there is mention of the appellant on the T.C. and thus, the consignment did relate to him. He received the consignment as he was to take delivery of the consignment, as he had received phone calls regarding this. These phone calls were received by his Clerks Amit Taneja, Janak Raj, and some were received by him. Statements made under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 Exhibits PF, PG and PH coupled with the statements of the prosecution witnesses which have found corroboration inter-se, the guilt of the appellant is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. On the aforesaid basis, the High Court came to the conclusion that no infirmity in the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge in convicting the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
