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>Court overturns Customs Act conviction citing invalid sanction; accused acquitted.</h1> <h3>MD. SAKUR Versus THE STATE</h3> MD. SAKUR Versus THE STATE - 1986 (23) E.L.T. 332 (Ori.) Issues Involved:1. Validity of the conviction under Section 135 of the Customs Act.2. Validity and sufficiency of the sanction under Section 137 of the Customs Act.3. Adequacy of charges framed under the Customs Act.4. Applicability and contravention of Sections 11C, 11D, 11E, 11F, and 111(d) and (p) of the Customs Act.5. Jurisdiction of the court to take cognizance without valid sanction.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Conviction under Section 135 of the Customs Act:The petitioner was convicted under Section 135 of the Customs Act for possessing 22 foreign watches without valid authority, violating Sections 11C, 11D, 11E, 11F, and 111(d) and (p) of the Act. The Sessions Judge upheld this conviction. However, the High Court noted that the findings of the lower courts regarding the possession of the watches were based on cogent evidence and were not contested. The primary question was whether the accused could be acquitted on account of technical infirmities.2. Validity and Sufficiency of the Sanction under Section 137 of the Customs Act:The High Court examined the sanction provided by the Collector of Customs, which is a condition precedent for taking cognizance of any offense under Section 135 of the Act. The sanction (Exhibit 3) indicated a contravention of Section 11 of the Act, which is merely an enabling provision and not an offense. The High Court found that the sanction did not cover the specific contraventions under Sections 11C to 11F and 111(d) and (p), thus showing non-application of mind by the sanctioning authority. This invalidated the jurisdiction of the court to take cognizance of the offense.3. Adequacy of Charges Framed under the Customs Act:The charges framed by the Magistrate were found to be inadequate. The Magistrate charged the accused under Section 11 and Section 111(d) and (p) but did not frame charges for violations of Sections 11C, 11D, 11E, and 11F. The Sessions Judge, while confirming the conviction, also failed to notice the absence of charges for these sections. The High Court noted that although no prejudice was caused to the accused, the lack of proper charges indicated a lack of due care by the lower courts.4. Applicability and Contravention of Sections 11C, 11D, 11E, 11F, and 111(d) and (p) of the Customs Act:The High Court discussed the relevant sections in detail. Section 111(d) deals with goods imported contrary to any prohibition, and Section 111(p) pertains to notified goods brought in contravention of Chapter IV-A provisions. Sections 11C, 11D, 11E, and 11F impose obligations on owners of notified goods. The petitioner did not claim the exception under Section 11G, which exempts goods for personal use. The High Court found that the petitioner had indeed contravened these sections.5. Jurisdiction of the Court to Take Cognizance Without Valid Sanction:The High Court emphasized that the sanction of the Collector is a condition precedent for taking cognizance of the offense. Since the sanction did not cover the specific contraventions and showed non-application of mind, the court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance. The High Court rejected the argument that this point should not be raised in revision, as it goes to the root of the matter.Conclusion:The High Court set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the Magistrate and confirmed by the Sessions Judge due to the invalid sanction. The accused was acquitted, and the criminal revision was allowed.
TaxTMI 