Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1980 (DEL)

JAGAN RAM, HANUMAN RAM v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

2006-11-01

BADAR DURREZ AHMED

body2006
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. ( 1 ) THE present revision petition is directed against the order dated 21. 12. 2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. ( 2 ) THE impugned order was passed in an appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment dated 05. 08. 2002 by virtue of which he had been convicted under Section 132/153 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') and by virtue of the order dated 16. 08. 2002, the petitioner had been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for one and a half months under Section 132 of the said Act and to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for one and a half months under Section 135 of the said Act. ( 3 ) THE main argument raised by the counsel for the appellant before the learned Additional Sessions Judge was that after the framing of the charge, no witness was examined and only on the basis of pre-charge evidence of one R. B. Pandey (PW-1), the petitioner had been convicted. Therefore, the petitioner sought acquittal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge agreed with the learned counsel for the petitioner that no evidence whatsoever had been recorded after the charge was framed on 10. 05. 2002 and rejected the contentions raised on behalf of the prosecution. Therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge thought it fit to set aside the judgment and order dated 05. 08. 2002 whereby the petitioner had been convicted. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge thought it fit to remand the matter to the court of the learned ACMM, New Delhi to grant two opportunities to the prosecution to conclude its evidence. However, he imposed costs of Rs. 2,500/- on the prosecution as and by way of a pre-condition. It was clearly mentioned in the impugned order that the amount was to be paid on or before 08. 01. 2003. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said costs have not been paid till date. He submits that the said costs of Rs. 2,500/- were clearly not paid by the date fixed by the impugned order, i. e. , by 08. 01. 2003. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said costs have not been paid till date. He submits that the said costs of Rs. 2,500/- were clearly not paid by the date fixed by the impugned order, i. e. , by 08. 01. 2003. He further submits that the stay order passed in the present case was also passed only on 17. 03. 2003 after the date of 08. 01. 2003 had already lapsed. ( 5 ) IN these circumstances, I find that since the pre-condition itself has not been satisfied as directed by the impugned order, no further proceedings can take place insofar as the present petitioners are concerned. This revision petition is disposed of accordingly, the effect of which would be that the order dated 05. 08. 2002 stands set aside and the petitioner stands acquitted. The lower court record be sent back immediately.