Gold smuggling discharge petition denied under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. despite claims of insufficient evidence

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....The HC dismissed the criminal revision challenging the denial of discharge under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. for offences under Sections 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 involving gold smuggling. The petitioner contended that prosecution relied solely on co-accused confessions and lacked independent incriminating evidence. The HC held that at the charge-framing stage, courts must only consider prima facie sufficiency of grounds without weighing evidence as in trial. The prosecution produced statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act from both accused, which constitute substantive evidence unlike police confessions under Cr.P.C. Combined with witness testimony and documentary evidence, sufficient material existed to frame charges. The discharge petition dismissal was upheld and revision dismissed.....