9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1315X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pta, J. Shri Satish Aggarwala, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Ms. Sangita Bhayana, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 20-4-2010 passed by learned ACMM, New Delhi in CC No. 129/1/89 whereby the respondents were acquitted. 2. Prosecution case, in nutshell against the accused persons is, that accused Khursheed Alam was intercepted by the officers of DRI on 23-9-1988 at Ghaziabad while he was driving the truck bearing No. UHM 1682 and the said truck was escorted by the officers and it was found to contain 99 packages containing synthetic yarn of foreign origin total weighing 3564 kgs collectively valued at ₹ 6,23,700/- and 70 another gunny bags of Maize of Indian Orig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not proved sanction for prosecution against either of the accused which is a mandatory requirement as per Section 137 of the Customs Act and for observing so, reliance was placed on Doki Sriramulu v. Assistant Collector of C.E Co. - 1988 (36) E.L.T. 247 (Orissa). It was further observed that mere proving of signatures on the sanction do not amount to grant of valid sanction. Prosecution failed to prove on record the sanctioning authority or the persons who were aware of the facts of the case and subsequently briefed the sanctioning authority about the case; (ii) There was no territorial jurisdiction as the truck containing the alleged smuggled article was intercepted at Ghaziabad, outside the jurisdiction of Delhi Court, as such, ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prejudice was caused to the respondent. As such, it is submitted that the impugned judgment be set aside. 6. Ms. Sangita Bhayana, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents are senior citizens and resident of Bihar. Under the circumstances, in case the complaint is ordered to be returned to Ghaziabad Court, it will be difficult for them to pursue the proceedings, as such, counsel submits that the matter be remanded back to the Trial Court where necessary submissions will be made. Counsel for the appellant has no objection to the same. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment dated 20-4-2010 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to ACMM, New Delhi who will decide the same after considering the rival submis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
