Gujarat High Court
Judgename :C.K.BUCH
Suraiya Mohammed Ikbal Gulamussain - Appellant
Versus
Assistant Collector of Customs - Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION286 of 2003
Decided On : 05/04/2004
Customs act, 1962 - Section 135 - Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947 -Sections 3 (1), 108, 124, 113, 114, 128, 138 (B) - Section 137 (1) - section 132, 133,134,135 - 138-B - Petitioners revisione by moving this Revision Application have prayed for quashing and setting aside the judgment order dated - Passed by the learned Chief Judicial magistrate - Criminal case and the Judgment and order dated passed by the learned Sessions Judge Kutch at in Criminal Appeal confirming the order of conviction passed by the learned trial Court holding the petitioners guilty of the offence punishable under Section - Petitioners are the orig. accused persons of the aforesaid Criminal case who have been tried on the strength of the complaint filed in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate wherein it is alleged that the petitioners tried to export sheep and goats out of which goats were belonging to prohibited category export of goats of breed was prohibited under the Control Order issued under the provisions of Import and Export during the month - Prosecution placed oral as well as documentary evidence before the learned trial Court and at the conclusion of the trial - Petitioners were held guilty the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Chief Judicial magistrate and confirmed by the learned sessions Judge has been challenged by way of preferring this Revision Application on various grounds mentioned in the memo of the Revision Application and it is submitted that the impugned judgments and orders passed by the courts below are illegal deserve to be quashed and set aside - Held, Learned counsel appearing for the respondent - If of course has taken me through various findings recorded by the learned Chief judicial Magistrate and the reasons assigned by the learned Chief Judicial magistrate confirming the order of conviction and sentence but in response to the query raised by the Court as to how a particular statement of the accused or witness could have been read as a substantive piece of evidence in absence of formal proof as to their recording and element of voluntariness could have been read by the learned Chief judicial Magistrate - Response of learned counsel has not been found convincing - Fact that goats were seized immediately prior to they were to be boarded in a sheep by itself would not be sufficient to hold the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section of the Act and this aspect was considered by the Central Board and on appreciation of facts the Central Board has recorded that there is no tangible evidence on record to suggest that a herd of goats was substituted after the live stock was examined by the Veterinary case of the prosecution is found infirm - Both the Courts below have erred in appreciating the evidence and in considering the inadmissible part of evidence while recording their finding - So judgment and order of both the Courts below shall have to be quashed and set aside on merit as well as on account of invalid sanction - Application is allowed.
( 1 ) THE petitioners-revisioners, by moving this Revision Application, have prayed for quashing and setting aside the judgment order dated 13th October, 1995, passed by the learned Chief Judicial magistrate, Kutch at Bhuj in Criminal case No. 1357/1984 and the Judgment and order dated 9th June. 2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kutch at bhuj in Criminal Appeal No. 39/1995, confirming the order of conviction passed by the learned trial Court holding the petitioners guilty of the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Customs act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as "the act," ).
( 2 ) THE petitioners are the orig. accused persons of the aforesaid Criminal case, who have been tried on the strength of the complaint filed in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, wherein it is alleged that the petitioners tried to export 550 sheep and goats out of which 182 goats were belonging to prohibited category i. e. Barbara breed. The export of goats of Barbara breed was prohibited under the Control Order issued under the provisions of Import and Export (Control) act, 1947 during the month of November. 1980. The prosecution, placed oral as well as documentary evidence before the learned trial Court and at the conclusion of the trial, the petitioners were held guilty the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Chief Judicial magistrate and confirmed by the learned sessions Judge, has been challenged by way of preferring this Revision Application on various grounds mentioned in the memo of the Revision Application and it is submitted that the impugned judgments and orders passed by the courts below are illegal, unlawful, unjust and hence, deserve to be quashed and set aside.
( 3 ) TO appreciate the say of the parties, some basic facts are "required to be mentioned. As per the say of the prosecution, on 25th November, 1980, the petitioners filed Shipping Bill no. 528 for export of a herd of 550 sheep and goats to Dubai and the export was to take place at the Port Mundra of Dist. Kutch on 26th november. In the midnight. Mr. Rana. Superintendent of Customs, searched 550 sheep and goats, which were to be exported and the Shipping Bill No. 528 in presence of two panchas and one of these panchas as per the case of the prosecution is a Veterinary Doctor and it was found, during the search or cross-checking that out of 550 sheep and goats, 90 goats were of Barbara breed and 92 goats were of barbara cross-breed. These goats could not have been exported as there was prohibition by the Export Control Order of 1977 issued under the provisions of section 3 (1) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The said 182 goats were seized by the Superintendent of customs by preparing a panchnama and thereafter statements of various persons came to be recorded under Section 108 of the Act, including the present petitioners, on 7th May a complaint was lodged stating detail of the alleged irregularity illegality found by Mr. Rana in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kutch at Bhuj and the learned trial Court on evaluation of evidence found that the prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, both the petitioners came to be convicted and on 13th October, 1995 the learned trial Court after affording opportunity of hearing on the point of sentence, imposed imprisonment of six months and a fine of rs. 3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand), in default S. I. for three months. This order of conviction and sentence was challenged by way of preferring an appeal before the learned Sessions Court and the learned sessions Judge after dealing with the abovementioned Criminal Appeal No. 39/ 1995, confirmed the order and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners.
( 4 ) IT is not a matter of dispute that for the contravention of Act, the department of Customs had instituted adjudication proceedings by issuing notice under Section 124 of the Act and in this adjudication proceeding, the Add
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.