Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the order discharging the accused could be interfered with in revision on the ground that the material on record was insufficient and the statements recorded under the Customs Act were unreliable.
Analysis: The petition challenged the discharge order passed after the matter was remitted for fresh consideration. The Court found no infirmity in the order of discharge. The Trial Court had noted the absence of a panch witness for the alleged recovery, the lack of independent evidence linking the scooter to the accused, and the fact that the case rested substantially on statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The Court also accepted that the surrounding circumstances, including the allegation of coercion and the medical indications referred to in the record, cast serious doubt on the voluntariness and reliability of those statements. In those circumstances, no prima facie basis for conviction was shown.
Conclusion: The revisional challenge failed and the discharge order was upheld.
Final Conclusion: Interference was unwarranted because the record did not disclose a sustainable prosecutorial case against the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: Revisional jurisdiction will not be exercised to unsettle a discharge order where the prosecution material lacks corroboration and the evidence relied upon does not furnish a reliable basis for conviction.