https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209509 At the discharge stage in a customs prosecution, preliminary evidence under Section 244 CrPC, including Section 108 statements and seizure-related documents, was sufficient to show more than a groundless case, so discharge under Section 245 CrPC was refused. The absence of express sanction for Section 132 of the Customs Act did not compel discharge, because the sanction issue could be examined by the trial court at the appropriate stage, including framing of charge. The material also disclosed a prima facie case against the eighth accused, linking him to alleged fraudulent evasion, misdeclaration, and transactions involving smuggled gold and sale proceeds; the prosecution under Sections 132 and 135 was allowed to proceed. en-us Wed, 16 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Jul 2013 17:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209509 At the discharge stage in a customs prosecution, preliminary evidence under Section 244 CrPC, including Section 108 statements and seizure-related documents, was sufficient to show more than a groundless case, so discharge under Section 245 CrPC was refused. The absence of express sanction for Section 132 of the Customs Act did not compel discharge, because the sanction issue could be examined by the trial court at the appropriate stage, including framing of charge. The material also disclosed a prima facie case against the eighth accused, linking him to alleged fraudulent evasion, misdeclaration, and transactions involving smuggled gold and sale proceeds; the prosecution under Sections 132 and 135 was allowed to proceed. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 16 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209509