9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (9) TMI 645X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssure. We also heard Shri Virag Gupta, learned D.R., who has no objection if the appeal is restored. Accordingly, we recall our earlier order and restore the appeal to its original number. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on the specific information, the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, intercepted on 11-6-95 one Contessa Car No. PB-10-4787 in which Sh. Wirsa Singh and Sarabjit Singh were travelling. The officers also intercepted two Scooters No. PB-08J-8261 and PB-08J-9973, which were being driven by Ranjit Singh, the appellant and Shri Naresh Kumar. The search of scooter No. PB-08J-8261, driven by the appellant, resulted in the recovery of foreign currency equivalent to Rs. 46,22,958.40. Indian currency of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of his poor financial condition; that he used to sell these biscuits through one Sh. Banti Dalai and handed over its sale proceeds to the appellant at his residence. Shri Wirsa Singh also, in his statement, admitted that on 11-6-95, he had left with his cousin, Sarabjit Singh for Jallandhar from Chandigarh in the Contessa car to collect the sale proceeds of foreign marked gold biscuits. He had, further, submitted that he was carrying on the smuggling of gold with one Sh. Khalid of Pakistan for the past many years; that he had earlier given delivery of gold biscuits to Ranjeet Singh and Naresh Kumar and had collected the sale proceeds from them; that he used to receive the commission of Rs. 3,50,000/- per 100 gold biscuits. The Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lakh and Rs. 50,000/- respectively; that, therefore, the appellant also deserves sympathetic consideration and expects justice at par with the relief allowed to the co-accused. 4. Countering the arguments, learned D.R., reiterated the findings as contained in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, wherein, he has given his findings that no evidence had been placed on record to support their contention that the statements were recorded in duress and were not voluntary; that it has been recorded by the Commissioner, in the impugned order, that the appellants were produced before the Magistrate and there was no allegation in the Bail Application to indicate that there was any use of force and pressure or duress regarding stateme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
