2006 (8) TMI 205 - HC - Customs

Court Grants Discharge due to Lack of Evidence

A MOHAMMED Versus STATE

A MOHAMMED Versus STATE - 2007 (207) E.L.T. 202 (Mad.) Issues Involved:1. Legality of the dismissal order by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in the discharge petition.2. Evidence against the petitioner in relation to the alleged offenses.3. Application of legal standards for framing charges and discharging the accused.4. Relevance and admissibility of statements and evidence in implicating the petitioner.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Dismissal Order by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate:The Criminal Revision case was filed against the dismissal order by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, in the discharge petition under Section 239 Cr.P.C. The petitioner sought discharge on the grounds of insufficient evidence against him. The trial court had dismissed this petition, leading to the current revision.2. Evidence Against the Petitioner in Relation to the Alleged Offenses:The petitioner was implicated in a case involving alleged offenses under Sections 132, 135 of the Customs Act, Section 120B r/w 420 IPC, 468 and 471 IPC, and Section 420 r/w 511 IPC. The case involved the smuggling of contraband goods like sandalwood logs, peacock feathers, and snake skins, which were misdeclared as Mica Powder in shipping bills. The petitioner was accused of being part of a criminal conspiracy and facilitating the smuggling.3. Application of Legal Standards for Framing Charges and Discharging the Accused:The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar, which establishes that a judge has the power to sift and weigh evidence to determine whether a prima facie case exists. The court must look for 'grave suspicion' against the accused, and if such suspicion is not properly explained, charges should be framed. Conversely, if the evidence only raises some suspicion but not grave suspicion, the accused can be discharged.4. Relevance and Admissibility of Statements and Evidence in Implicating the Petitioner:The statements recorded from the petitioner on 7-4-1993 and 21-4-1993 were found to be exculpatory and did not implicate him in the smuggling activities. The statements of other accused, including A.1 (Kalimullah) and A.4 (Chandrasekaran), did not provide direct evidence against the petitioner. The confession of the approver, Sambandam, did not mention the petitioner, further weakening the case against him.The court noted that mere suspicion, such as the petitioner making a phone call to A.5 during a search, was insufficient to establish involvement in the smuggling. The court emphasized that suspicion must be grave to justify framing charges.Conclusion:The court concluded that there was no material evidence to implicate the petitioner in the alleged offenses. The statements and evidence presented did not raise a grave suspicion against the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner was entitled to discharge, and the dismissal order by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was set aside. The petitioner (A.2) was discharged, and the revision was allowed. The trial court was directed to proceed with the case against the other accused expeditiously.