SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Sikk) 69

HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.
Union of India - Appellant
Versus
Dasang Bhutia - Respondent
Crl. Rev. P. No. 02 of 2020
Decided On : 03-08-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Dilip Kumar Agarwal, Junior Standing Counsel, for the Petitioner; Mr. Zangpo Sherpa, Advocate, for the Respondent

A prima facie case for smuggling exists if the evidence presented could sustain a conviction; trial courts must assess this before discharging an accused.

Headnote:(A) Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 135(1)(a), 135(1)(b), 102, 110, 112, 137(1), 123 - Discharge of accused for offences under Customs Act by Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate - Trial Court erred in discharging Respondent when prima facie case existed for smuggling gold - Evidence presented indicated ongoing culpability - Court reiterates necessity of evaluating evidence for potential conviction, not beyond reasonable doubt - Original trial must resume. (Paras 9, 10, 11)

Table of Content
1. conclusion and orders of the court (Para 14)

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, Sherathang Land Customs Station, Gangtok under Siliguri Commissionerate), on receipt of information from the Sikkim Police on 17-11-2015, accompanied by Customs Officers of Gangtok Customs and two witnesses went to the Sadar Police Station, Gangtok at about 14.00 hours. At the Police Station (P.S.) they learned that as per GD Entry No.34, dated 16-11-2015, the team of Police Personnel posted at Sherathang P.S. with the assistance of the Indo Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) stationed at Nathula, acting on a tip off, conducted a body search of traders and a search of vehicles inbound from Rinchenghang, Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR), China to India at Nathula Gate. On a search of the 'Toyota Fortuner', vehicle bearing registration No.SK-01-PA-6314 and its owner-cum-driver, the Respondent, one piece of yellow metal believed to be gold, weighing approximately one kilogram in weight was found concealed in the inner pocket of the right side of his trousers and duly recovered. The Respondent failed to furnish any valid documents to establish legitimate possession of the article which appeared to be smuggled from TAR, China and was later found to be valued at Rs.51,00,000/- (Rupees fifty one lakhs) only. At about 17.00 hours on 16-11-2015, the Station House Officer (SHO), Sherathang P.S., Police Inspector (PI) Novin Rai seized the said gold bar bearing the marking AS30361 'VALCAMBI SUISSE 1 KILO FINE GOLD, 999.9' and the vehicle of the Respondent vide seizure memo dated 16-11-2015, under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C, in the presence of witnesses Sub Inspector (SI) Roshan Gurung of the Special Branch and Woman Constable (WCT) Bindhya Rai, Sikkim Police. The Respondent was then detained and brought to the Sadar P.S., Gangtok. On the same day in a related incident a truck driven by one Ms. Nim Lhamu Sherpa was intercepted and five pieces of gold bar weighing five kilograms were found concealed under the driver's seat. As both the cases involved illegal import of gold, the SHO, Sherathang P.S. informed the Customs Officials and made over to them the Respondent, all the gold bars recovered and the seized Toyota Fortuner by preparing a 'Handing-Taking' Memo dated 17-11-2015 at 14.40 hours, at the Sadar P.S., in the presence of the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Gangtok and Police Officers. The gold seized from the Respondent was tested by two independent licensed jewelers of Gangtok who concluded that the yellow metal bar was a 24 carat Gold bar. The Respondent on preliminary enquiry admitted that he had brought the gold from Rinchenghang, TAR, which was accordingly seized and sealed by the SHO, Sherathang P.S. As the gold was clandestinely smuggled into India it was thus liable for confiscation under Section 111 of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top