TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 415X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contains household goods worth about Rs. 94,000/-. However, when opened it was found to contain the goods worth approximately Rs.12 Lacs in contravention as such Mobile Phones, Perfumes, Camera etc. The respondent had no licence for import under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. Held that- appeal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Trial Court for a fresh de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e for import under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. 3. In the trial, the prosecution i.e. the appellant examined 5 witnesses. The fifth witness was the Investigating Officer, Pramod Buniyam. 4. Mr. Vaz, the learned Counsel for the prosecution appellant has strongly objected to the acquittal of the respondent on the ground that the Trial Court has totally ignored the ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ief Judicial Magistrate could have made a statement like that and rested, though he was bound by his duty as a Magistrate trying the offence, to consider the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Indeed the credibility of criminal Courts trying an offences rests on discussion of the evidence brought by the prosecution and the reasonings of the Court thereon. There is complete dereliction of duty by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
