2009 (5) TMI 517

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... them for an offence under Section 135 of the Act and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each. The recovered currency of Rs. 13,56,000/- was confiscated under Section 113 of the Act. 2. Aggrieved against their conviction and sentence, petitioners filed an appeal. The appeal was decided by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, on 16-3-2009. The Appellate Court upheld their conviction but taking into consideration long pendency of the trial reduced the sentence awarded to the petitioners from three years to two years. 3. Complaint in the present case was filed by the Assistant Collector....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tioners could not be convicted by the trial Court. Counsel for the parties have taken time to examine the legal position. 8. Mr. Vikram Chaudhri, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners, has very fairly stated today that this point has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.K. Sinha, Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Limited & Others - 2008(2) Recent Criminal Reports 38 and, therefore, counsel for the petitioners will not proceed with this argument as the Hon'ble Apex Court has decided this argument in favour of prosecution. 9. Mr. Vikram Chaudhri, Advocate, has read testimony of PW. 4 Cur dev Singh and has referred to cross-examination of the witness. Mr. Chaudhri has further stated that statement of Avtar Singh....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-8-1985. Thereafter, on same day, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class had remanded him to judicial custody. Therefore, this observation of the Appellate Court is against the record. Similarly, in para 18 of the judgment of trial Court an argument was advanced that statement of Avtar Singh was re corded when he was in judicial custody, neither the statement was attested by any official of the jail nor any permission was taken. No document has been re lied upon by the defence to show that Avtar Singh before his arrest which was effected on 29-8-1985 at 1300 hours was in judicial custody of any other case. Therefore, a stray line of cross-examination of officials who are not very conversant with day to day affairs of the Court cannot be construed to....