9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 773X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agistrate has acquitted the respondents No. 1 to 3 from the charges levelled against them. 2. Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 1992 has been filed by the appellant-original accused No. 3 Ramji Hirea Sosa. Originally the said appellant-accused has filed Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 1986 before the Sessions Court, Valsad, challenging the conviction rendered by the trial Court, whereby the trial Court, has held the appellant-accused guilty for the offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- i/d to undergo RI for 9 months. However, when the Criminal Appeal No. 611 of 1987 came up for hearing before this Court, this Court vide Order dated 3-2-1992 ordered the said A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kashiram of Rander and accused Nos. 2 and 4 (respondents No. 2 & 3 herein) had participated in purchasing the same and accused No. 2 was driving the said vehicle at the time when the custom officers chased the said, vehicle. It was also revealed that the accused No. 1 was the owner of the said vehicle. During the investigation the involvement of all the accused was established and, therefore, the case was registered against them under Section 135 of the Customs Act. Thereafter, the criminal Case No. 35 of 1984 was registered in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Valsad. 5. Thereafter, the charge was framed against the accused by the trial Court which was denied by the accused. 6. The prosecution has examined in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 104 of 1992. 9. I have heard Mr. K.T. Dave, learned Standing Counsel for the Appellant, Mr. K.V. Pandya, learned APP at length and learned Advocate Ms. Sadhna Sagar, appearing for the appellant-original accused in Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 1992. 10. Mr. K.T. Dave has contended that the Judgment and order of the trial Court in so far as acquitting the appellants-original accused Nos. 1, 2 & 4 are concerned is against the provisions of law and the trial Court has not properly considered the evidence led against them. It is established that the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of the provision of law. He also contended that the learned Magistrate has not properly considered the fact that statements recorded under Section 108 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. Reported in (2007) 3 SCC 75, the Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases. In para 16 of the said decision the Court has observed as under : "16. From the aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that while exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal the Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was in the name, of original accused No. 3. The trial Court has also clearly observed that the accused No. 3 has not examine with examined any witness to support his say that the vehicle in question was not of the accused No. 3. In so far as the case against the respondents of Criminal Appeal No. 611 of 1987 (original accused No. 1, 2 & 4) the trial Court has clearly found that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against them and also found that there are serious lacunae in the evidence of the witnesses. Nothing is produced on record to rebut the concrete findings of the trial Court. 17. Thus, the appellant could not bring home the charge against the respondents-original accused Nos. 1, 2 & 4 (in Criminal Appeal No. 611 of 87) an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed. The judgment and order dated 12-6-1986 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Valsad, in Criminal Case No. 35 of 1984 are hereby confirmed. The order of acquittal of respondents-original accused Nos. 1, 2 & 4 of Criminal Appeal No. 611 of 1987 of the offences charged against them is hereby confirmed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the original accused No. 3-appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 1992 is also confirmed. The original accused No. 3 - Ramji Hira Sosa (appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 1992 and accused No. 3 in Criminal Case No. 35 of 1984) is directed to surrender before the trial Court within six weeks, failing which the trial Court is directed to issue Non-Bailable Warrant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
