TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 435X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stoms Act was made out against the present Petitioner - there should be strong suspicion created in the mind of the court from the material available on the record, the possibility of the Petitioner having committed the offence cannot be ruled out and need to be reversed – orders set aside. - 3122 of 2007 and 11263 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 23-5-2008 - Aruna Suresh, J. REPRESENTED BY: S/Shri T.N. Mittal with Ramesh Gupta, Akshay Anand and Ms. Soonarn Nagrath, Advocates, for the Petitioner. Shri Satish Aggarwal and Ms. Pooja Bhaskar, Advocat es, for the Respondent. [Judgment]. - Petitioner Trilok Nath Mittal is facing trial in complaint Case No. 32/1/94 titled 'Customs v. D.L. Anand Ors.'; as accused No. 2 filed by respondent N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of evidence against the petitioner and the statement of A. Sabestian recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act was not voluntarily given and therefore no reliance could have been placed On the said evidence against the Petitioner. It is further submitted that the alleged goods were not recovered from the possession of the Petitioner and also that the impugned order of charge has been passed on the basis of no evidence as no documents supporting the statements of the witnesses as referred by them in .their own statements were produced and that therefore prima facie there is no evidence on record against the Petitioner to frame him for an offence allegedly committed under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. Learned counsel for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of charge was oral evidence not supported by any documentary evidence. It is clear that when the documents are prepared those documents have to be placed on the record to corroborate the oral evidence of the witnesses recorded by the court. It does not appeal to the reason that in the absence of documentary evidence, Magistrate could assess the oral evidence only to conclude that prima facie case was made out against the Petitioner. 7. Complainant had moved an application before the court seeking permission to lead secondary evidence on the ground that the original documents have been lost/misplaced by the department but the photocopies of those documents were on record. This application was dismissed vide order dated 16th July, 2005. Ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
