TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (5) TMI 435
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... conducted in the godown at the ground floor premises of building No. 12/21, Shakti Nagar, Delhi which was in possession of Darshan Lal Anand. As a result of search 252 video cassette players and ball bearings allegedly of foreign origin collectively valued at Rs. 53,78,250/- and one bill book of M/s. Anand Auto Industries were recovered and seized. The Petitioner in the said complaint was prosecuted for offence punishable under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The complaint against the present petitioner was filed in the year 1994 and the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM), New Delhi took cognizance of the complaint and fixed the case for pre-charge evidence. The Petitioner was summoned and pre-charge eviden....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pondent has refuted these submissions. 4. I have considered the submissions of Shri T.N. Mittal, learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as of the Senior Public Prosecutor for Customs Mr. Satish Aggarwal and have also perused the record; 5. It is admitted case of the respondent (Customs Department) that the original documents pertaining to this complaint like search memo, seizure memo, recovery memo, etc. prepared at the time of conducting raids, the slips of PNB in the name of Shri. A. Sabestian, Darshan Lal Anand, Trilok Nath, Roop Kumar and Lakhpat Singh all dated 22-12-1991 allegedly recovered from A-84, Ashok Vthar, New Delhi from possession of Mr. A. Sabestian, documents prepared regarding recovery memos, the seizure memo of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Union of India v. Prafulla - 1979 SC 366 AIR, failed to correctly apply the principle of law as laid down in the said judgment to the facts and circumstances of this case. For want of evidence in this case it cannot be said that a serious doubt is created in the mind of the court indicating that Petitioner had committed the alleged offence so as to frame a charge against him. True that at the time of framing of charge court is not to lift and weigh the evidence of the prosecution in a manner as if it was deciding the case on merits and has only to assess the evidence prima facie as to whether there was sufficient material on the record so as to indicate that the possibility of the Petitioner-accused having committed the alleged offence ca....