<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1980 (11) TMI 60 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41432</link>
    <description>Reliable seizure evidence and a voluntary confession can sustain a smuggling conviction under the Customs Act despite minor inconsistencies in witness accounts, so the first accused&#039;s conviction under section 135(1)(a)(i) was upheld. Where the alleged recovery of seven gold bars from a paper packet was supported by conflicting and unsafe evidence, the acquittal was left undisturbed. The sentencing court&#039;s discretion was not interfered with because detention period, age and family responsibilities had already been considered, so enhancement was refused. Overlapping preventive detention and undertrial detention could be counted for set-off under section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the set-off was maintained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Jun 2010 11:52:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=79963" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (11) TMI 60 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41432</link>
      <description>Reliable seizure evidence and a voluntary confession can sustain a smuggling conviction under the Customs Act despite minor inconsistencies in witness accounts, so the first accused&#039;s conviction under section 135(1)(a)(i) was upheld. Where the alleged recovery of seven gold bars from a paper packet was supported by conflicting and unsafe evidence, the acquittal was left undisturbed. The sentencing court&#039;s discretion was not interfered with because detention period, age and family responsibilities had already been considered, so enhancement was refused. Overlapping preventive detention and undertrial detention could be counted for set-off under section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the set-off was maintained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41432</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>