2001 (12) TMI 750

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ant had made a prayer for decision on merits. Accordingly, I have heard the learned S.D.R., Shri T.K. Kar and have gone through the impugned orders. 2. The challenge in the appeal is to the imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 10,000.00 (Rupees ten thousand) on the applicant/appellant. As per facts on record, two persons were intercepted and two pieces of gold biscuits were recovered from t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and) was imposed upon the applicant/appellant by the original adjudicating authority and upheld by the appellate authority. 3. It is seen that for imposing the personal penalty upon this present applicant/appellant, the authorities below have relied upon the statement of Shri Basanta Ghosh who is a co-accused. Apart from that, reliance has been placed upon the statement of the applicant/appe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... contended that nothing incriminating was recovered from the applicant's/appellant's possession and his implication is solely based upon the statement of the co-accused. 4. I find that it is a settled law that the statement of the co-accused, unless corroborated in material particulars, is not to be made the basis for penalising. As far as the applicant's/appellant's own statement is concern .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X