9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (3) TMI 67X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 on the file of C.J.M. Pudukkottai and one Nizam A2 in that case have been convicted of offences under Section 135(b)(ii) of the Customs Act read with Section 13(1) and Section 67 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and under Section 135A of the Customs Act. The revision petitioner was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months for each offence and Nizam was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- for each offence. In Appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai Division confirmed the conviction of the revision petitioner and also the sentence and set aside the conviction and sentence on Nizam. The revision petitioner has filed this revision against the Judgment of the Sessions Judge. 3. On 29-8-1976, P.W. 1 Inspector of C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioned and a complaint was laid. 4. The defence of the revision petitioner was that he was taken from his house by P.W. 1 at about 2.00 P.M. on 29-8-1976 to Manamelkudi and that he gave a statement under duress and coercion and that he was induced to sign the statement Ex. P. 5 on the promise that he will be let off. The other accused Nizam contended that he has nothing to do with the crime and that he was forced to give a statement as in Ex. P.6. The learned trial Magistrate convicted both the revision petitioner and the other accused of the offences with which they were charged and sentenced them as stated above. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence on the revision petitioner who was A-1 and set asi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the Mahazar witnesses has been examined. The Court is left only with the evidence of P.W. 1 who stated that he seized the articles. In this case the mahazars, Exs. P-1 and P-2 have been prepared and attested by Muthiah and Shankar. It is desirable and in this case it is even necessary from the standpoint of the prosecution to examine at least one such witness in addition to the Inspector of Central Excise who actually seized the materials. As has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court, this is not because the evidence of the Inspector of Central Excise concerned is approached with any reservation, but it will be but fair from the standpoint of the accused that the prosecution has placed before the Court the best evidence in respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 976 on the seashore. He was actually arrested on 31-8-1976. The arrest memo shows that the revision petitioner was arrested on 31-8-1976 at about 11.00 hours. Therefore, he must have been under the custody of P.W. 1 from the time of apprehension on the seashore of Manamelkudi at 7.00 P.M. on 29-8-1976 till 11.00 hours on 31-8-1976. This alleged confession was given by the revision petitioner only on 31-8-1976. It should be noted that the revision petitioner has not given the confession immediately after his apprehension, but it was nearly two days after the apprehension that Ex. P-5 was recorded. Under those circumstances, can it be said that there was no inducement, threat or promise from P.W. 1 ? It should be noted that in cross-examinati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
