Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Additional Sessions Judge has gone wrong while not appreciating the deposition of PW1 Mrs. The custom department, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, has assailed by filing the instant revision petition.ġ5. Being aggrieved against the aforesaid conviction order dated, respondent has preferred an appeal before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi and the said appeal was decided vide order dated, whereby the respondent was acquitted.ġ4. After hearing the arguments, respondent was again convicted, vide order dated by the Court of learned ACMM New Delhi and sentenced for a period of six months under Section 132 of the said Act and three years under Section 135 coupled with a fine of Rs. On, statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr. After remanding back of the case, on, PW3 Shri Ramesh Chander Aggarwal, who has tested the recovered gold was examined. Respondent preferred an appeal against the aforesaid conviction order dated before the Sessions Court and learned Additional Sessions Judge, had remanded back the case for further trial.ġ1.
#ARUNA GUPTA TRIAL#
The Trial Court after hearing the arguments convicted the respondent and sentenced her for a period of six months under Section 132 of the said Act and three years under Section 135 coupled with a fine of Rs. The respondent herself appeared in the witness box and was examined as DW1.
#ARUNA GUPTA CODE#
The statement of the respondent under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code was recorded and the entire evidence against the respondent was put to her.ĩ. Their cross examination was conducted after charge.
The aforesaid PWs were tendered for their cross examination after charge. After recording pre-charge evidence, vide order dated charges under Section 132 & 135(1)(a) of the said Act against the respondent was framed, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Suchi Goyal, Air Customs Officer(ACO), the seizing officer PW-2 Shri S.K Mohanty, Superintendent of Customs, who recorded the statement of the respondent under Section 108 of the said Act.Ĩ. After investigation, a complaint under Section 132 and 135(1)(a) of the said Act was filed.
As alleged, during the course of the inquiry, the respondent tendered her voluntary statement under Section 108 of the said Act, which is admissible in evidence, wherein she admitted the recovery and seizure of the aforesaid gold and other incriminating facts.ħ. The respondent could not produce any other documentary or otherwise in support of legal import of the recovered gold and the same was seized under the provisions of the said Act under the reasonable belief that the same were smuggled into India, hence, liable to be confiscated.Ħ. Personal search of the respondent was conducted, but nothing incriminating was recovered. The recovered gold biscuits bearing foreign markings, collectively weighing 1166.4 Grams of 999 purity, valued collectively at Rs. The baggage of the respondent was examined and 10 pieces of gold biscuits of 10 Tolas, each from inside her black colour ladies purse were recovered. The customs authority served a notice under Section 102 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred as to the ‘said Act’). At this stage, two independent panch witnesses were called, in the presence of witnesses, customs officer asked the respondent, whether her baggage or person contained any contraband goods, like gold or electronic, to which she replied in the negative.Ĥ. Having completed the other formalities, at the custom courier counter, when she walked through the green channel, was intercepted on suspicion by the custom officer at the exit gate of the arrival hall.ģ.
Her hand baggage was consisting of one black colour stroller bag and one black colour ladies hand bag. A1477, she reported at customs courier counter to finish her official duty. ZI366659, working as On-board courier, went to Singapore on duty and on her return on at IGI Airport, New Delhi from Singapore by Air Indian flight No. On, accused Dina Aruna Gupta, respondent herein who is holder of Indian Passport bearing No.
Petitioner, the Customs Department, has assailed the impugned order dated passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi whereby the respondent Ms. For the reasons explained in the application, the same is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.ġ.
0 kommentar(er)
