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

2001 (4) TMI 101

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Cargo Complex movement area by 03.45 A.M. and he had seen three persons (A.1 to 3) entering into the movement office and A.2 and A.3 were loading three suitcases in a taxi bearing No. TSC 3390 standing outside the movement office and A.1 was watching the same. P.W. 1 along with his party intercepted the persons along with their suitcases and the same were seized in the presence of Rajamani, P.W. 2 and when the suitcases were opened, they found that each suitcase contained synthetic diamonds in eight packets and the total weight of the synthetic diamonds was 106 kgs, and the same were seized under a mahazar. On enquiry, it was revealed that A.1 was working as a store keeper in Indian Airlines, A. 2 is a Loader and A. 3 is a canteen supplier .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... A.1, A.2, A.1 to A.4 remanded to custody till 29-12-1986." 5.On appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu in C.A. No. 135 of 1995, the learned Judge has retained the conviction as well as the sentence. But, however, he has observed that the confessional statements said to have been given by the accused were not voluntary confession and the same were extracted under coercion, and that therefore, they cannot be relied upon. 6.The petitioners have contended that the alleged confessional statement was not voluntary and the same was obtained by duress and also relied upon the case S.K. Modi v. State of Maharashtra - [1999 (109) E.L.T. 41 (S.C.) = AIR 1979 S.C. 705] to sustain their contentions, wherein the Supreme Court held .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... court is not proper. 8.It is the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioners that the person who gave the complaint was not examined; (2) there is no independent witness to support the case of the prosecution. 9.The first contention of the petitioners is that the person who lodged the complaint has not been examined is not correct. P.W. 1 is the person, on whose complaint, the case was registered and he was examined and that therefore, there is no substance in the said contention of the petitioner. 10.With regard to the other contention of the petitioners that there is no independent witness to support the case of the prosecution is concerned, it would pale into insignificance, if we look in the background of the case. The .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d upon few more judgments with regard to this aspect and the facts in the said cases are different from the facts in the this case. 13.On the other hand, the learned Advocate for the respondent has submitted that the conviction is not purely based upon the confession made by the accused, but based on the other materials and the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and argued in support of the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Lower Appellate Court. 14.Learned Advocate for the respondent has pointed out that the Lower Appellate Court is completely satisfied with the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 which corroborates each other and the evidence is also cogent, convincing and acceptable and therefore, the order passed by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice." 17.On examining the impugned judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge with the above said background and the principles laid down by the Apex Court, it is manifestly clear that the Courts below have concurrently come to the conclusion that the evidence placed before the Court, are sufficient to come to the conclusion that the accused have committed the offence and I do not find any error or illegality, in the said finding which warrants any interference by this Court. 18.In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. - .....

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