TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 419
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....further undergo simple imprisonment for 1½ months; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for 1½ months and upholding the judgment of conviction and sentence by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 29.10.2007, the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner. 2. Factual matrix, as emerges from the record, is that the Customs filed a complaint against the petitioner/accused for offences punishable under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. It was alleged that on the basis of an information, in the early hours of 23.01.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....omplaint was filed against the petitioner. The petitioner was summoned. Pre-charge evidence was recorded and charges under Section 133 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act were framed against the petitioner. The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charges framed. 4. To prove its case, prosecution examined two witnesses. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, the statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he had claimed innocence. The petitioner opted to lead defence evidence, but he did not adduce any defence evidence. The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate vide judgment dated 27.02.2002 held the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under Section 132/135(1)(a) of the Customs Act and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the witness PW1 Sh. Santosh Kumar, Inspector, Preventive, Customs had proved the complaint filed by him as Ex.PW1/A; the said complaint was filed on the basis of sanction and authorization Ex.PW1/B accorded by Sh. M.M.S. Sawhney, Collector, Customs, Delhi; on the basis of information he along with other officers of Customs Preventive department and two independent witnesses intercepted the petitioner in the early hours of 23.01.1995 near the pre-paid taxi counter outside the arrival hall of IGI Airport, New Delhi; petitioner had arrived from Dubai by flight No.EK-702; on query, the petitioner admitted that he was carrying smuggled gold concealed in his rectum as well as number of other articles in his baggage such as batteries of lamp, eme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion was by name; the panch witnesses were not from the department; he had not cited them as witnesses in any other case; he denied that the panch witnesses were stock witnesses; petitioner was intercepted in the early hours of the morning at about 4.25 a.m.; after interception, petitioner was taken to the Customs house; statement of petitioner was recorded in his presence. 12. Similarly, PW2 Sh. S.M. Aggarwal, Customs Superintendent (Preventive), New Customs House stated that on 23.01.1985, petitioner appeared before him and tendered his voluntary statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 Ex.PW2/A; on the same day, petitioner tendered his another statement Ex.PW2/B; he issued summons Ex.PW2/C on 23.01.1995 to the petitioner; ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it was observed that the revisional court does not function as a court of appeal and, therefore, cannot re-appreciate the evidence. Sections 397 to 401 of the Code are group of sections conferring higher and superior courts a sort of supervisory jurisdiction. These powers are required to be exercised sparingly. The jurisdiction can be invoked to correct the wrong appreciation of evidence. Though the High Court is not required to act as a court of appeal but at the same time, it is the duty of the court to correct manifest illegality resulting in gross miscarriage of justice. The High Court is not required to interfere in the concurrent finding of facts. This Court is of the considered opinion that the present case is not a fit case where th....