TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -judged at the initial stage. This Court is conscious of the fact that aforesaid Dinesh Kumar is not a cited witness by the respondent, but on this technical ground, petitioner cannot get a clean chit as list of additional witnesses can be always filed by the respondent even now before the trial court - Due to whose fault the trial of this case has not begun, is a matter which is not required to be gone into in these revisional proceedings, as mere delay would not be detriment because trial court record has been reconstructed. Prima facie, it appears that petitioner is the beneficiary of the seized goods and because applicability of Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 cannot be altogether excluded from consideration at this in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the record clearly shows that there is not only statement of co-accused against the petitioner-accused but there is statement of Dinesh Kumar Ex.PW 5/B and Sh. Praveen Kumar Chaudhary, brother of the accused-petitioner Ex. 6/B involving the petitioner as one of the beneficiary of the goods smuggled from Singapore." 4. At the hearing, learned senior counsel for petitioner had contended that there is no legal evidence against petitioner and the statements of Dinesh Khanna and petitioner's brother-Praveen K. Chaudhary under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and similar statement of co-accused are inadmissible in evidence as the same can be used only for reassurance of substantive evidence, which is lacking in the instant case. In suppor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Billa Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence-Crl. Misc. (M) No.2380 of 1998, decided on 19.03.1999 by this Court; Vijay Kumar Ganju Vs. NCB-Crl. Rev. No.214 of 1991 decided on 4.8.1993 by this Court; NCB Vs. Yakub Khan- Crl. Appeal No.105 of 2005 decided on 18.07.2008 by this Court; Yudhister Kumar Vs. State Anr.- 1992 JCC 271 No.1613 of 1991; Naresh J. Sukhawani Vs. UOI-1996 (83)- ELT 258 (SC) - SLP No.23708 of 1995, decided on 6.11.1995 to submit that apart from statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act of co-accused, there are similar statements of petitioner's brother-Praveen Kumar as well as of Dinesh Khanna and since petitioner is the beneficiary of the seized goods, so it cannot be said that it is a case of no evidence agains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 24 of the Evidence Act........" 9. The submissions advanced by both the sides, impugned order, the material on record and the decisions cited have been considered and thereupon, this Court is of the considered opinion that mere retraction of statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act by itself is not enough, as it is relevant to consider when and why it was retracted and in the instant matter, such a statement of co-accused cannot be excluded from consideration at the threshold of trial as its admissibility or inadmissibility under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has to be considered after the evidence is led in relation to it. Apart from this, there is similar statement of independent person-Dinesh Kumar, whose evide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
