Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J
Ancy Philip, W/o. Benny – Appellant
Versus
CBI, ACB, Cochin, Represented By The Standing Counsel for CBI, High Court Of Kerala, Ernakulam – Respondent
ORDER :
(P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.)
The 3rd accused in C.C No.1 of 2020 pending before the Special Court (SPE/CBI), Thiruvananthapuram is the petitioner. Annexure A1 is the final report, based on which C.C.No.1 of 2020 was instituted. The petitioner filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(Code) seeking to quash Annexure A1 and further proceedings thereon.
2. The petitioner was the Superintendent of Customs, in charge of hand baggage x-ray scanning machine at the International Airport, Thiruvananthapuram, the 1st accused was a Havildar and the 4th accused, who turned approver, was a Superintendent, Customs, Air Intelligence unit. The 2nd accused Sabeer Abdul Karim was an international passenger. The allegation of the prosecution is that on 10.03.2018 the 2nd accused who came from Dubai at the International Airport, Thiruvananthapuram had with him 980.100 grams of gold worth Rs.30.28 lakhs enclosed in a wallet. The 1st accused who was on duty clandestinely collected the said wallet from the 2nd accused and furtively came out avoiding the x-ray machine. The 2nd accused was therefore able to pass through the x-ray scanner and get customs clearance. The wall
Insufficient evidence to establish complicity in alleged offences led to the quashing of criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
Exoneration in departmental proceedings does not bar subsequent criminal prosecution if evidence differs; High Court can consider materials from accused to prevent abuse of process.
The court ruled that possession of gold without evidence of theft or conspiracy does not meet the legal criteria for criminal charges of smuggling or receiving stolen property.
The court ruled that if a petitioner is exonerated in a departmental inquiry on merit, the same allegations cannot be prosecuted further in criminal proceedings due to the higher standard of proof re....
The main legal point established is the interpretation of 'at any previous stage of the case' under Section 245(2) of Cr.P.C. and its relevance to the pre-cognizance stage of the complaint.
The court dismissed the petition to quash criminal proceedings, affirming that prima facie evidence of misconduct and negligence under relevant statutes was established.
A discharge petition is only granted if no prima facie evidence exists to support the charges; involvement is determined by the prosecution's presented evidence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the illegal diversion of duty-free imported gold to the domestic market and mis-declaration of exported jewelry are serious offenses that can ....
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
