Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
Air Customs – Appellant
Versus
Begaim Akynova – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedures for plea bargaining. (Para 2 , 18 , 19) |
| 2. arguments on convictions and penalties. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 10) |
| 3. court's duty to ensure fair process. (Para 6 , 12 , 20) |
| 4. determining appropriate punishment. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. final dismissal of the petition. (Para 24 , 25) |
JUDGMENT
Subramonium Prasad, J. This writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against Order on sentence dated 24.09.2021, passed by the learned ACMM-01, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, in C.C. No. 2193/2020 sentencing the Respondent herein to undergo imprisonment for a period already undergone and pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- for offences under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) and (b) of the CUSTOMS ACT , 1962, and Orders dated 27.09.2021 and 29.09.2021, passed by the Ld. CMM, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, in C.C. No. 2193/2020 directing Customs/Petitioner herein to release the passport of the Respondent herein.
2. The facts, in brief, leading up to this petition are as follows:
i. It is stated that on 11.09.2019, two passengers - Ms. Aida Askerbekova (Pax-1) and Ms. Begaim Akynova (Respondent herein - Pax-2) were intercepte
The applicability of plea bargaining under Chapter XXIA of the Cr.P.C. is upheld for offences under the Customs Act, 1962, with individual liability for smuggling assessed per seized goods.
Section 135 of Customs Act, 1952 reads as evasion of duty or prohibitions.
A prima facie case for smuggling exists if the evidence presented could sustain a conviction; trial courts must assess this before discharging an accused.
The court held that the offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act is bailable when the value of the goods is below Rs. 1 Crore and classified as restricted rather than prohibited.
The court held that the offence under the Customs Act is bailable as the value of gold in individual possession is below Rs. 1 Crore, classifying the goods as restricted rather than prohibited.
Smuggling of gold, even with intent to threaten economic security, does not constitute a terrorist act under Section 15(1)(a)(iiia) of the UA(P)A.
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....
Point of law: Section 112(a) of the Act is applicable to a person, who in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any action, which act or omission would render such goods liable for confiscation ....
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
