Back
MILIND N. JADHAV
Union Of India At The Instance Of Assistant Director, DRI, Mumbai – Appellant
Versus
Ameenabi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Milind N. Jadhav, J.)
1. Heard Ms. Thakkar, learned Advocate for Appellant and Ms. Tidke, learned APP for the State. None appears for the Respondent No.1.
2. This Criminal Appeal challenges judgment of Acquittal dated 14.10.1998 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai in CC. No. 198/CW/88. Appellant is the Union of India on behalf of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (for short “DRI”). It is filed in 1999 and has reached final hearing today. Despite none representing the Respondent, I have perused the impugned judgement and heard the Appellant.
3. Respondent No.1 – Smt. Ameenabi w/o Late Haji Mohammed Merchant is the original accused who was tried for offences punishable under Section 135 (1) (b) read with Section 135 (1) (I) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Sections 85 (1)(ii) and 85 (1)(a) read with Section 8(1) of Gold Control Act, 1968.
4. By virtue of the impugned judgement dated 14.10.1998, the learned Trial Court passed order of acquittal of Respondent No.1. For convenience accused shall be referred to as Respondent No.1.
5. Before I advert to the merits and submissions advanced by the learned Advocate for Appellant and learned A
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and reliance solely on a retracted confession without corroborative evidence is insufficient for conviction.
Possession of unaccounted foreign gold bars leads to conviction under Customs and Gold Control Acts, where failure to provide lawful explanation substantiates charges of smuggling.
Possession of foreign gold without necessary permissions constitutes an offence under the respective statutes, obligating strict sentencing.
The burden of proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act lies with the accused to prove lawful possession of seized goods, which was not met in this case.
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 ....
The burden of proof in smuggling cases under Section 123 of the Customs Act shifts only upon reasonable belief of smuggled nature; inadequate evidence substantiates the legality of goods.
The prosecution must provide credible evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as mere confession under coercion lacks probative value.
Quasi-judicial proceedings require strict adherence to principles of natural justice, including the right to cross-examine witnesses, which was violated in this case, rendering the confiscation order....
A prima facie case for smuggling exists if the evidence presented could sustain a conviction; trial courts must assess this before discharging an accused.
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
