Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding

🚨 Important Update for Our Users

We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.

⚠️ This portal will be fully migrated on 31-July-2025 at 23:59:59

After this date, all services will be available exclusively on our new platform.

If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please let us know via our feedback form , with specific details, so we can address them promptly.

  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 1967 (5) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password



 

1967 (5) TMI 19 - HC - Customs

Issues:
Challenge against the charge framed under section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act read with section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Request to set aside the charge and quash the proceedings pending in the court of a presidency magistrate of Calcutta.

Detailed Analysis:
The case involved the arrest of one accused at the Dum Dum Airport with a suitcase containing illegally imported wrist watches. Subsequently, 13 other individuals, including the petitioner, were arrested. The Customs Officers recorded statements of some accused, and a charge sheet was submitted, followed by examination of 43 witnesses. The magistrate framed a charge under the relevant sections against all 14 accused.

The petitioner's counsel argued that there was no legal evidence connecting the petitioner to the alleged offense. The evidence against the petitioner included statements by co-accused implicating him in a conspiracy, entries in account books recovered from a locker, and testimony of a witness regarding the petitioner's visit to Dum Dum. However, none of this evidence directly linked the petitioner to the offense.

The court emphasized that statements of co-accused alone cannot lead to a conviction and must be supported by reliable and acceptable evidence. In this case, the account books and witness testimony did not provide independent evidence against the petitioner. Therefore, the court concluded that there was no legal evidence to support the charge against the petitioner.

Consequently, the court allowed the rule, quashing the charge framed against the petitioner and terminating the pending proceedings. The court ordered the records to be sent down promptly for further action.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates