9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (10) TMI 69X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 2. The facts which are relevant for the decision of the present appeals are that accused respondents Surjit Singh, Veda Singh and Daljit Singh besides Hardial Singh (declared Proclaimed Offender) were accused respondents in a criminal complaint under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, filed by the Assistant Collector Customs, Department of Revenue, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondents Surjit Singh, Veda and Daljit Singh filed two criminal appeals before the Sessions Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, vide judgment dated 9-5-1996, disposed of both the appeals filed by the accused. The appeals were accepted, the judgment and order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate were set aside and the accused were acquitted of the charge framed again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondents be convicted. 6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, while acquitting the accused respondents of the charge framed against them had given various reasons for acquitting them of the charge framed against them. The sanction to prosecute the accused respondents being not proper was one of the grounds on which the accused respondents were acquitted. There were various other grounds on whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed Trial Court in the present case had erred in law in convicting the accused respondents by ignoring the aforesaid judgments Ex. DA and Ex. DX. The learned Additional Sessions Judge had also discussed the prosecution evidence and it was held that it would be going too far to place reliance on the prosecution version. Even the confessional statements allegedly made by the accused were ignored on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
