ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition, the challenge is to impugned judgment of 18th December, 2003, which upholds the conviction and sentence imposed upon petitioner for committing offence under Section 135(1)(a) of The Customs Act, 1962. The substantive sentence imposed upon petitioner is of rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine. On 18th July, 1989, Rajiv Batra, co-accused of petitioner was apprehended at Indira Gandhi International Airport, Delhi and from the VCP carried by him, 385 gms. of gold was recovered and since co-accused Rajiv Batra had failed to produce the documents regarding import of the said gold, it was seized under Section 110 of The Customs Act, 1962. Thereafter, statement of co-accused Rajiv Batra under Section 108 of The Customs Act, 1962 was recorded, in which he had named the petitioner and his co-accused-Rajesh Kumar, which led to initiation of proceedings under. The Customs Act, 1962, which had culminated in the conviction of petitioner and same was unsuccessfully challenged in the appeal.

(2.) In this revision petition, to assail the impugned conviction of petitioner, learned counsel for petitioner contends that it is mandatory to obtain sanction under Section 157 of The Customs Act, 1962 and the sanction EX. PW1/A has not been proved by the Officer who had given the sanction.

(3.) It is further contended by learned counsel for petitioner that the statements of accused persons recorded under Section 108 of The Customs Act, 1962 are contradictory and thus, not reliable and the impugned order, convicting the petitioner is bad in law. It is pointed out by learned counsel for petitioner that co-accused Rajiv Batra has stated in his statement under Section 108 of The Customs Act, 1962 that he had known petitioner whereas co-accused Rajesh Kumar, who has been acquitted, had stated in his statement under Section 108 of The Customs Act, 1962 that co-accused Rajiv Batra did not know petitioner and so, conviction of petitioner is bad in law, as no recovery has been effected from him. Learned counsel for petitioner states that the case of petitioner is at par with the case of accused-Rajesh Kumar, who has been acquitted by giving benefit of doubt by the trial Court, so on parity basis, petitioner be also acquitted.