Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
Air Customs – Appellant
Versus
Islam Ahmad – Respondent
JUDGMENT
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
1. In this appeal under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (the Cr.P.C.), the complainant in CC No. 97/1999 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, assails the judgment dated 05.11.2012 as per which the accused no. 2 (A2), the respondent herein, has been acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. of the offence punishable under Section 135 (1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act).
2. The prosecution case is that on the intervening night of 16.4.1999 and 17.4.1999, accused no. 1 (A1), holder of Indian passport No. A/4242102 was intercepted by the Preventive Officers, Customs and a search was conducted whereby his bag was found to contain foreign currencies valued at Rs.27,77,263/-.No explanation was given by A2 for the foreign currency in his possession, and hence the same was seized under Section 110 of the Act.
2.1. According to the complainant, A1 in his voluntary statement given under Section 108 of the Act on 17.4.1999, admitted seizure of the foreign currency and further stated that during the period from 1985 to 1993 he used to sell clothes, cosmetics on the footpath
Confessions of co-accused cannot solely establish guilt without independent corroborating evidence; insufficient cross-examination rights compromise the evidentiary value of witness testimonies.
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 prosecution must provide credible evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as mere confession under coercion lacks probative value.
The prosecution must prove the voluntary nature of statements given under section 108 of the Customs Act, and the statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C cannot replace substantive evidence.
unless the evidence adduced in the case is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with that of his innocence, the court should refrain from recording a fi....
Possession of counterfeit currency requires proof of knowledge or reason to believe the notes are counterfeit; evidence must be recorded accurately to ensure admissibility.
A defendant must possess knowledge of the counterfeit nature of currency for conviction under IPC Section 489C; failure of prosecution to prove this led to acquittal.
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
