2016 (9) TMI 675

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....epartment alleging that they had committed an offence punishable under Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. They were: (i) Ganji Satyanarayana Dasu; (ii) Padmanabhan; (iii) Naresh Jain; (iv) Surender Jain; and (v) Prakash. 2. The case of the customs was that on June 22, 1995 Ganji Satyanarayana Dasu (A-1) attempted to smuggle gold into India from Dubai. Upon arriving at IGI airport, he declared 42 gold biscuits weighing 4.914 kgs and 3 silver bricks weighing 99.97 kgs, however, upon inspection of the silver bricks in the preventive room by custom officers it was found that the silver bricks contained gold, which had not been declared. The custom officers allowed Ganji Satyanarayana Dasu to exit the arrival hall and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2986 (Delhi) Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Vs. Mohd. Anwar, the learned Judge has held that the only requirement at the stage of framing of charge was to prove that the sanction was granted by the sanctioning authority after due application of mind. The learned Judge has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as 2006 Crl.LJ 518 (SC) State through Inspector of Police, AP Vs. K. Narsimhachary to hold that where the authenticity of the sanction by the State is not questioned, it is a public document within the meaning of Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and could be proved as per Sections 76 to 78 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The learned Judge has held that even though the sanctioning authority has not be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat this role of A-2 had been mentioned in the statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act by A-1 and A-3. The learned Judge has noted that Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 provides that any person 'knowingly in any way concerned' in the evasion of payment of duty would be liable under the section. The learned Judge has held that in light of the statements of A-1 to A-3 as well as the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, a prima-facie case had also been made out against A-2. 8. As regards Naresh Jain A-4, the learned Judge has held that the no incriminating evidence against him had been brought on record. As per the learned Judge, the statement of the co-accused Surender Jain (A-3) under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1....