9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 1049X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder dated 3rd August, 2010 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-01, New Delhi in CC No. 160/1/91 acquitting the Respondent of the offence under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, on 16th July, 1991, the Respondent arrived at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi by flight No. BA-035 from London. Afte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Customs Department under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act. 3. There are two grounds on which the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent. The first was that the petitioner was unable to prove the sanction order was issued in accordance with law. Although PW-1 had recognised and identified the signature of the sanctioning authority, the file in which the sanction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter if there were no witnesses at all. In that case, the question whether in the absence of panch witnesses, the offence could be proved on the basis of the evidence of the official witnesses, could have arisen. However, where a panch witness is named and later it transpires that the address given by the panch witness is fictitious, then a different set of consequences will follow. It would throw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
