9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 675X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duly accorded by the sanctioning authority. Whether the retraction of the accused persons were placed before the sanctioning authority at the time of grant of sanction? - Held that: - whether the sanction was granted by the Commissioner of Customs after due application of mind was a matter of evidence and was not relevant at the stage of framing of the charge - contention of accused could not be accepted. Whether a prima-facie case of commission of offence under Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 was made out against A-2 to A-5? - Held that: - Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 provides that any person ‘knowingly in any way concerned’ in the evasion of payment of duty would be liable under the section - the order disch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were later retracted. A-5 was supposed to be the driver of the car in which A-1 to A-4 had to leave the precincts of the airport. 3. After recording pre-charge evidence, the learned ACMM discharged the accused observing that the sanction Ex.PW-1/B was not valid because the sanctioning authority had not been examined; there was a material omission in not presenting the retraction of the accused persons before the sanctioning authority at the time of grant of sanction; the panch witnesses who had witnessed the recovery of gold from Ganji Satyanarayana A-1 had not been examined and offence under Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 was not made out against A-2 to A-5. 4. In the revision filed, three issues have been discussed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Regarding the second issue, the learned Judge has held that the contention of the accused that the sanction Ex.PW-1/B had been granted by the Commissioner of Customs without due application of mind, since the retraction of the accused was not placed before the sanctioning authority at the time of grant of sanction, could not be accepted. According to the learned Judge, whether the sanction was granted by the Commissioner of Customs after due application of mind was a matter of evidence and was not relevant at the stage of framing of the charge. 7. As regards whether a prima-facie case of commission of an offence under Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 was made out against the accused, the learned Judge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... charge. 9. As regards Surender Jain A-3, the learned Judge has noted that as per the statements of Ganji Padmanabha, Padmanabha Manon Rajaram and Surender Jain himself, the smuggled gold was to be delivered to Surender Jain outside the airport. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as AIR 1965 SC 1072 Radha Kishan Bhatia Vs. Union of India, the judgment of the Bombay High Court reported as AIR 1960 Bom. 478 Gopal Mavaji Parab Vs. T.C. Seth and the judgment of the Madras High Court reported as AIR 1960 Madras 281 Devichand Jestimal and Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, the learned Judge has observed that in order to be held liable for smuggling a person must have arranged for the import of the smuggled go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
