Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1992 (7) TMI 338

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... case of the prosecution is that on 23rd April, 1988 two trucks Nos. HYO-7141 and Hyo 2297 were intercepted by U.P. Police at Ghaziabad Delhi border. 167 gunny bags containing 6012 kgs. of synthetic yarn were seized from truck No. HYO-714.1 and 149 gunny bags containing 5643 kns. of the same material were seized from truck No. HYO-2297. The seized trucks and the yarn were handed over by the police to the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, New Delhi who seized the goods on 24th April, 1980 under the Customs Act, 1962. Kulwant Singh was the driver of Truck No. HYO-7141. He was arrested pursuant to the same. That that the truck driver Angrej Singh ran away on seeing the police. On interrogation it was found that the two trucks belong to Pati .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... titioner. In the words of the adjudicating authority which are reproduced as follows: IN respect of the liability of S/Shri Rajan, Pappu and Ramesh Kumar Wadhera, there is no statement on record of either of these three person nor their involvement in the dealing of smuggled goods. The statement of the manager of the Transport Company, Shri Shiv Ram Sharma is only the evidence on record regarding involvement of these three persons. However, this evidence is not substantiated by any there evidence on record to cover the statement given by Shri Shiv Ram Sharma. Searches conducted on the residential premises of all the three persons, Shri Rajan, Shri Pappu and Shri Ramesh Kumar Wadhera also did not lead to recovery of anything incriminating. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... de Lobo Vs. Mahadev Vishwanath Parulekar and another 1984 Crl.L.J.513 and Uttam Chand and Others Vs. Income Tax Officer, Central Circle, Amritsar . Similar view was taken by this Court in case of Jewels of India and two others Vs. State and another 1987 (32) Elt 511 and S.K. Sinha Vs. S.K. Singhal and another 1987 (1) Crimes 842. In view of these judgments, I will not hesitate to hold that after the adjudicating authority having exonerated the petitioner, it will serve no useful purpose to continue with the criminal proceedings. (6) However, Mr. Dass has taken a legal objection that the petitioner should first approach the trial court instead of approaching this Court. According to him, the Magistrate has ample power to discharge the acc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Provisions of Section 245 would show that it is not as simple as Mr. Dass want to point out. The Phrase, at any previous stage of the case , has a bearing upon the duty of the magistrate to take all evidence and it is in just a position to that duty that sub-section (2) empowers the magistrate to discharge an accused at any previous stage of the case. (9) The Magistrate can discharge the accused even before the date fixed for hearing, if upon the material before him, he is satisfied that the accused cannot possibly be convicted of the offence. He has also to hold that the charge is groundless. The word groundless appearing in this sub section has not been defined but acting judiciously, a Magistrate has to come to the 'conclusio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion (2) and allow the Magistrate to give reasons and hold that the charge is groundless and then discharge the accused, I think, asking now the petitioner to invoke the power of the Magistrate under Section 245 Cr. P.C., is nothing but a mockery of Justice. This petition was filed on 3rd October, 1991 when the adjudicating authority had already delivered the order dt 29th August, 1991. The respondent appeared on 13th November, 1991 and now after almost a year, it will serve no purpose by asking the petitioner to go back to the trial court and get an order of discharge. Moreover, the petitioner is not asking to be discharged nor asking reappraisal of the evidence, which has already been gone into by the adjudicating authority. What he is a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates