Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2019 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 1771 - BOMBAY HIGH COURTSmuggling - illegal seizure of Gold Bars - fabrication of false evidence - wrongful confinement or wrongful restraint - HELD THAT:- The entire basis of the case originates on 7.7.1993 when accused nos.1 & 2 are supposed to have gone to the house of complainant, threatened him with arrest, handcuff him and parade him in public and took him into the office of D.R.I without issuing any summons and the person who had witnessed that was the wife of complainant. Wife of the complainant has not been examined. Ms.Maria stated that, that is not the subject matter of the complaint because the real issue starts only after complainant reached in the office of D.R.I. I do not agree with Ms.Maria in as much as if one reads the complaint and the evidence, the so-called illegal act of the accused is supposed to have commenced at the residence of the complainant on 7.7.1993. As regards sections 341, 342 & 348 of the Indian Penal Code, again there is nothing to indicate that there was wrongful confinement or wrongful restraint. D.R.I was investigating illegal importation of gold bars. On record is the summons under section 108 of the Customs Act 1962 (Exh.P-3). To summon a person and interrogating him would not amount to wrongful confinement or illegal restraint. At the time of writing the impugned judgment, the case against Bhupendra Doshi and Ramesh Mali by D.R.I. was still pending - The Court has come to the conclusion that D.R.I officers were within their rights and law and there can be no wrongful confinement or illegal restraint. The only witness to the entire alleged assault is complainant himself. It is settled law that even if complainant is the only witness or even if there is a single testimony, if that testimony is so reliable, Court need not ask for corroborating that evidence. At the same time, if the evidence of that sole witness is not so clinching, then certainly the Court would look for corroboration - There is an acquittal and therefore, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to the accused under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. The appeal stands dismissed.
|