TMI Blog1992 (3) TMI 89X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charge against the first respondent. The judgment of the High Court, in our considered opinion, does not suffer either from manifest illegality or irregularity or perversity. Hence, for all the discussions made above, we confirm the judgment of the High Court and dismiss the appeal as devoid of any merit. - 846 of 1981 - - - Dated:- 6-3-1992 - S. Ratnavel Pandian and Kuldip Singh, JJ. [Judgment]. - The Superintendent of Customs, Valsad, Gujarat has directed this Criminal Appeal on being aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court rendered in Criminal Revision Application No. 400 of 1979 allowing the revision and setting aside the judgment of the first Appellate Court confirming t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rosecution examined several witnesses, it completely rests its case only upon two pieces of the evidence, namely, the evidence of P.W. 7 (who was originally the second accused in the complaint filed before the trial Court) and on the statements recorded from A1 and A3 under Section 108 of the Customs Act. 4. The trial Court convicted accused Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 and sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment and acquitted accused Nos. 7, 8 and 17 in the complaint. It may be noted that the respondent who was accused No. 6 was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. Challenging the judgment of the trial Court, the first respondent filed Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 1978 before the District Judge, Va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and A3 under Section 108 of the Customs Act, the High Court has correctly pointed out that the first Appellate Court was not at all justifed in taking those statements of the accused persons as corroborative pieces of evidence to that of witness No. P.W. 7 (who was arrayed initially as accused No. 2 in the complaint). When these two pieces of evidence, namely, the evidence of P.W. 7 and the statements of A1 and A3 given before the Customs Officers are eschewed from consideration as correctly pointed out by the High Court there is absolutely no evidence worth mentioning to sustain the conviction of the first respondent as recorded by the trial Court and subsequently confirmed by the first Appellate Court. In fact, the High Court has analysed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
