TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court allows revision petition under Section 397(2) CrPC, upholds sanction for prosecution under section 135 Customs Act</h1> <h3>Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Versus Arun Kumar Juneja and Ors.</h3> Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Versus Arun Kumar Juneja and Ors. - 2012 (281) E.L.T. 496 (Del.) Issues:Challenge against order discharging respondents under section 245 CrPC, validity of sanction, maintainability of revision petition, absence of independent witness as ground for discharge.Analysis:1. The revision petition challenged the order discharging the respondents under section 245 CrPC due to lack of evidence and irregularity in the sanction order. The facts revealed the smuggling of ball bearings from Nepal, leading to apprehension of individuals and recovery of contraband. Sanction for prosecution under section 135 Customs Act was granted by the Collector of Customs.2. The maintainability of the revision petition was contested by the respondents' counsel, arguing it should have been filed in the court of the Ld ASJ. However, the court found the petition maintainable under Section 397(2) CrPC in the High Court. The challenge regarding the validity of sanction was raised, alleging lack of application of mind and non-examination of the sanctioning authority.3. The court examined the validity of the sanction order and the necessity of the sanctioning authority's examination. It noted that the sanction appeared to have been granted after due consideration, and the absence of the sanctioning authority's examination did not vitiate the sanction order. Citing legal precedents, the court emphasized that the sanctioning authority's personal scrutiny was not a mandatory requirement at the pre-charge stage.4. The court referred to relevant case laws such as Kushal Kumar vs. CBI and Another, emphasizing that the sanction order must ex facie show consideration of evidence. It was highlighted that the order granting sanction need not contain detailed reasons but must reflect the basic facts constituting the offense. The purpose of sanction was reiterated as a preventive measure against malicious prosecutions.5. The court addressed the issue of the absence of independent witnesses as a ground for discharge, emphasizing that the non-availability of independent witnesses cannot be a blanket reason for discharge. It stressed that the evidentiary value of prosecution witnesses should not be undermined at the charge framing stage, citing legal precedents to support this view.6. Ultimately, the court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter back to the ACMM for trial. The ACMM was directed to expedite the trial process, and the parties were instructed to appear before the court on a specified date. The revision petition was disposed of, concluding the judgment.
TaxTMI 