TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 1023X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ears - Held that:- Learned Senior counsel for the revisionist has not challenged the conviction of both the accused Ajit Pal Singh Sethi and Daljit Singh u/s 135 of the Customs Act - There is concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below in respect of guilt of revisionists u/s 135 of the Customs Act - So, the conviction recorded by both the Courts below in respect of offence under Section 135 of Customs Act against both the revisionists stands affirmed. Accuseds have already undergone protracted trial of more than 21 years - Even according to the prosecution, the petitioners were simply carriers – Relying upon Jeevraj B. Jain v. Central Excise & Customs Deptt. and another [1999 (2) TMI 625 - SUPREME COURT] – SC had directed the accused to pay a fine of ₹ 1,00,000/- where the occurrence related to the recovery of 600 gold biscuits and the matter was 30 years old – Therefore, keeping in view the ratio of the said authority, the sentence of accuseds stands reduced to the period already undergone - However, their sentence of fine enhanced to ₹ 2,00,000/- each instead of ₹ 10,000/- as imposed by the trial Court – Decided partly in favour of Customs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r mud-guard on the left side of the said jeep s body. The search of the cavity revealed four cloth vansalies which when opened yielded gold biscuits duly wrapped in adhesive tapes which on counting came to 400. Each biscuit weighing 10 tolas was bearing foreign marking. On further rummaging, one more cavity built in right side of the mud-guard of the jeep was detected from where, three more vansalies were recovered. When the same were opened, the same revealed 328 more gold biscuits each weighing 10 tolas bearing foreign marking duly wrapped in similar adhesive tapes. Therefore, in all 728 gold biscuits valued at Rs. 3,65,00,464/- were recovered and the same were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 in consequence of failure of Ajit Pal Singh Sethi and Daljit Singh to produce any documentary evidence regarding their lawful importation acquisition/possession/transportation. The above-mentioned jeep valued at Rs. 2,00,000/- was also taken into possession under Section 115 of the said Act along with the registration book and insurance cover note. 4. Statements of Ajit Pal Singh Sethi were recorded on 4-5-1992, 5-5-1992 and 6-5-1992 before S.K. Luthra, wherein, he admit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of so many people and brought to Directorate Revenue Intelligence Office, Amritsar where he was asked to write confessional statement involving himself and other accused. Statement was dictated to him by the officials of DRI under duress and threat. He further stated that he never admitted that the gold has been recovered from him nor he stated that gold belonged to Amrik Singh @ Chamku and Balwinder Singh @ Billa. He was made to sign blank papers under duress and threat. On 7-5-1992 he had submitted an application before the Court. On 23-11-1992 after he was released on bail he made application about his innocence to Collector Customs, Chandigarh that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. 8. Accused Daljit Singh stated that he was picked up from bus stand when he came from Patiala. He never made any statement voluntarily. He was asked to write the statement as per dictation of officers of DRI under duress and threat. He never told that the gold biscuits have been recovered from him or their co-accused nor he stated that the gold biscuits belonged to Amrik Singh @ Chamku. In his defence, accused Daljit Singh examined DW-1, Satish Kumar DW-2 and M.K. Bhan DW-3. Other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onviction of other co-accused. The learned trial Court has rightly held that statement of co-accused under Section 108 of the Act against the co-accused is a weak type of evidence and conviction of co-accused cannot be based on the uncorroborated statement of co-accused. Counsel for the appellant (Customs) is fair enough to concede that there is no corroborative evidence against Amrik Singh @ Chamku and Balwinder Singh for warranting their conviction under Section 135 of the Customs Act except statements of co-accused under Section 108 of Customs Act. 18. Consequently, the appeal preferred by the Customs Department stands dismissed being without any merit. Criminal Revision Petition No. 595 of 1997 19. Shri Bipan Ghai, learned Senior counsel for the revisionist has not challenged the conviction of both the accused Ajit Pal Singh Sethi and Daljit Singh under Section 135 of the Customs Act. Otherwise also, there is concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below in respect of quilt of revisionists under Section 135 of the Customs Act. So, the conviction recorded by both the Courts below in respect of offence under Section 135 of Customs Act against both the revi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
