Back
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA
Amad Noormamad Bakali – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP MEHTA, J.
1. Heard.
2. These two appeals arise from common judgment dated 21st December, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad1 [Hereinafter being referred to as “High Court”] in Criminal Revision Application No. 381, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390 of 2005 whereby, the revisions preferred by the original accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 were dismissed and their conviction for offence punishable under section 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 was affirmed.
3. The details of revisions preferred by the original accused persons are noted herein-below:
| Revision | Preferred by |
| Criminal Application No. Revision 381 | Amad Noormamad Bakali (accused No. 2) |
| Criminal Application No. Revision 385 | Aamad Alimamad Paleja (accused No. 1) |
| Criminal Application No. Revision 386 | Anwarali Abdula (accused No. 5) Sama |
| Criminal Application No. Revision 387 | Chamanlal Kakubhai Thakkar (accused No. 7) |
| Criminal Application No. Revision 388 | Ismail Alimamad (accused No. 3) Paleja |
| Criminal Application No. Revision 389 | Ismail Ibrahim Mandhara (accused No |
Seizure of smuggled foreign Wrist Watches – Sentence can be reduced where mitigating factors are heavily loaded in favour of accused.
Statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act are admissible unless proven involuntary; concurrent findings of conviction upheld when based on sufficient evidence despite challenges regarding the a....
Possession of smuggled goods under the Customs Act confirms liability for prosecution without proper documentation; the accused must prove otherwise.
The prosecution must prove goods are smuggled for conviction; mere possession does not equate to illegal activity. Courts maintain authority to adjudicate matters post-Customs confiscation.
The court emphasized the importance of examining the voluntariness of a statement and the need for corroboration of evidence, rejecting a belated retraction and upholding the penalty based on the tru....
The admissibility of a statement and the validity of a retraction, as well as the role of the accused in the commission of the offense, are crucial in determining liability under the Customs Act.
Statements made under section 108 of the Customs Act require strict adherence to procedural safeguards for admissibility; failure to comply renders them non-evidential in adjudication.
Confessions of co-accused cannot solely establish guilt without independent corroborating evidence; insufficient cross-examination rights compromise the evidentiary value of witness testimonies.
The burden of proof in customs seizures lies with the appellant, who must demonstrate improper valuation or legality of confiscation; failure to substantiate claims results in dismissal of appeal.
A confession under section 108 of the Customs Act must be proven voluntary and reliable; mere marking of documents does not equate to proof, and appellate courts should respect acquittals unless the ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
