9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 1217X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ordered the discharge of accused- respondent nos.2 and 3. 2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present revision application are as under: 2.1. A Criminal Complaint No.4655 of 1989 was filed by the applicant in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhuj (Kuchchh) under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 85 of the Gold Control Act, 1968 against 15 accused including respondent nos.2 and 3. The said prosecution was sequel to the seizure of a country craft on 02.12.1988 at Jakhau Coast in Kuchchh in the Indian Waters. After a chase by the Coast Guards by means of patrolling boat and a Helicopter the aforesaid country craft could be caught hold and seized. It contained 7500 Gold Bars of 10 Tolas each brought from Dubai. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e on the statement of the accused no.1 made before the Superintendent of Customs, Jamnagar (Exh.100) on 08.12.1988, wherein he has confessed that the gold consignment was meant for the delivery to the Kasam i.e. accused no.14. He has submitted that the evidence on record reveals that the identity of the accused no.14 has been established in view of the aforesaid statement. He has also placed reliance on Exh.134, wherein the statement of accused no.2- Mohammed Khalil Peer Mohammed has been recorded. 3.2. Learned advocate Mr.Vyas for the applicant has submitted that the reliance placed by the trial court on the judgment dated 25.05.1992 (Exh.278/B) passed in Criminal Case No.4655 of 1989 while discharging the present accused is erroneous sin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mohammed Fasrin V/s. State represented by the Intelligence Officer, reported in (2019) 8 SCC 811. 5. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. The relevant documents from the record are also perused. 6. It is not in dispute that the accused nos.1 to 10 and 12 were subjected to trial and by the judgment and order dated 25.05.1992 (Exh.278) passed in Criminal Case No.4655 of 1989, the accused nos.1 to 10 were convicted whereas the accused no.12-Umar Haji Hasan Subhaniya was acquitted. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused no.14 was the nephew of the accused no.12-Umar Haji Hasan Subhaniya and ultimately, consignment of gold was me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... annot be disturbed. The Apex Court in the case of Mohammed Fasrin (supra) has held thus: "8.We, for the decision of this case, therefore, proceed on the premise that the confession is admissible. Even if it is admissible, the court has to be satisfied that it is a voluntary statement, free from any pressure and also that the accused was apprised of his rights before recording the confession. No such material has been brought on the record of his case. It is also well settled that a confession, especially a confession recorded when the accused is in custody, is a weak piece of evidence and there must be some corroborative evidence. The confession of the co-accused, which was said to be a corroborative piece of evidence, has been discussed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
