Back
MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Dasang Bhutia – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Meenakshi Madan Rai, J. - The Court of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (hereinafter, 'CJM'), East and North Sikkim, at Gangtok, vide its impugned Order dated 09-10-2019, in Prosecution Report Case No.01/2017, discharged the Respondent/Accused, Dasang Bhutia, (hereinafter, 'Respondent') of the offences under Section 135(1)(a) and (b) of the CUSTOMS ACT , 1962 (for short, ' CUSTOMS ACT ') on consideration of the facts, provisions of law and the evidence brought forth, concluding that no case was made out against the Respondent to warrant his conviction for the offences under the aforementioned provisions of the CUSTOMS ACT . Aggrieved thereof, the Petitioner/Complainant (hereinafter 'Petitioner') is before this Court urging that the Learned Trial Court erred in its conclusion and erroneously discharged the Respondent.
2(i). To appreciate the matter in its correct perspective it is essential to briefly lay down the facts of the case. The Petitioner lodged a Complaint before the Court of Learned CJM in Prosecution Report Case No.01/2017 under Section 135(1) (a) and (b) and Section 137(1) of the CUSTOMS ACT , stating that the Petitioner, (Superintendent of Customs, Sheratha
A prima facie case for smuggling exists if the evidence presented could sustain a conviction; trial courts must assess this before discharging an accused.
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.
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....
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.
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 ....
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.
Possession of smuggled goods under the Customs Act confirms liability for prosecution without proper documentation; the accused must prove otherwise.
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
