Skip to content


Assistant Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad Vs. Parasmal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCustoms
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 546 of 1979
Judge
Reported in1983(12)ELT328(AP)
AppellantAssistant Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad
RespondentParasmal
Appellant AdvocateK. Subrahmanya Reddy, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateGouri Shankar Sanghi, Adv.
Excerpt:
.....compensation of rs.4,15,150/- awarded by the tribunal was enhanced to rs.8,20,000/-. - even his evidence does not clearly establish as to how the accused is connected with kanthilal & company to show the premises was let out......deposed that he seized contraband articles from premises which is said to have been let out to one kanthilal & company. however the accused was arrested on 5-3-1974 though the seizure was on 4-3-1974. it is not established as to how the accused could be said to have been in possession of these articles. some of the witnesses turned hostile, particularly the panch witnesses. ultimately it is only the evidence of p.w. 2 that remains. even his evidence does not clearly establish as to how the accused is connected with kanthilal & company to show the premises was let out. the entire case rests only on the confessional statement of the accused said to have been made to p.w. 2 which is retracted. therefore this evidence cannot form the basis for conviction. the lower court has rightly.....
Judgment:

1. This is an appeal against acquittal filed by the learned standing counsel for the Central Govt. against the order passed by the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The case mainly rests on the evidence of P.Ws. 2 to 5, P.W. 2 the Customs Officer deposed that he seized contraband articles from premises which is said to have been let out to one Kanthilal & Company. However the accused was arrested on 5-3-1974 though the seizure was on 4-3-1974. It is not established as to how the accused could be said to have been in possession of these articles. Some of the witnesses turned hostile, particularly the panch witnesses. Ultimately it is only the evidence of P.W. 2 that remains. Even his evidence does not clearly establish as to how the accused is connected with Kanthilal & Company to show the premises was let out. The entire case rests only on the confessional statement of the accused said to have been made to P.W. 2 which is retracted. Therefore this evidence cannot form the basis for conviction. The lower court has rightly acquitted the accused.

2. In this result the appeal is dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //