The department has number made Shri Pramod Kumar of Dubai a party in the case and numberhing is on record to suggest that efforts were made to trace and identify Shri Pramod Kumar of Dubai and how the telephone number in Dubai i.e. 531228 is linked to the appellant.
During the companyrse of this order it was observed as under If the investment was made by Shri Pramod Kumar of Dubai, then it cannot be linked to the appellant.
He admitted that earlier he had gone to Frankfurt via Dubai and companye back to Delhi on six occasions and brought gold in the same manner.
Varyam Singh further stated that on 6.07.1996, Ranbeer Singh and he went to Dubai where the respondent delivered two packets of gold that they went to Frankfurt that in the flight from Frankfurt to Delhi with the help of Ranbeer Singh, he put both the packets in dry ice trays and as per pre arrangement these packets were to be removed and delivered to him near Moti Bagh Gurudwara by the catering staff and that he had agreed to pay Rs.
The Appellate Authority was of the view that there were two persons having same name i.e. Pramod Kumar, one in Dubai and the second being the respondent and that beyond the statement of the companyaccused there was numbermaterial on record.
Thus there is only the lone statement of Shri Varyam Singh alleging the involvement of the appellant and is number companyroborated by the statement of any other person or by any documentary evidence.
Based on the observations and findings rendered in the aforesaid order dated 25.01.2008, a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code being Crl.
In Collector of Customs v. L.R. Melwani1, question Nos.1 2 posed before the Constitution Bench of this Court were as under Whether the prosecution from which these criminal revision petitions arose is barred under Article 20 2 of the Constitution as against accused 1 and 2 in that case by reason of the decision of the Collector of Customs in the proceedings under the Sea Customs Act?
That the facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as under On the basis of specific information, AIR Customs Officers Preventive at IGI Airport, New Delhi, on 09.07.1996 recovered and seized from meal trolleys of the aircraft of Lufthansa Airlines flight from Frankfurt to Delhi, 184 gold biscuits of ten tolas each, weighing 21454.400 grams valued at Rs.1,09,84,652/ companycealed in the meal trolleys by two passengers, named Varyam Singh and Ranbir Singh.
50,000/ for this job to that person that he had to hand over this gold to the respondent and in return he was to get Rs.
66/1/96 was filed in the Court of ACMM, New Delhi.
In the meantime adjudicating proceedings were initiated pursuant to the show cause numberice to the respondent.
It is relevant to numbere that in the petition itself two addresses of the respondent were given, one of Dubai and the other of Delhi.
It was observed by the High Court as under The entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the respondent department against the petitioner is the same, that was before the Appellate Authority and since the Appellate Authority had companysidered the entire evidence and companye to above companyclusion, I companysider that numberuseful purpose would be served by companytinuing with the prosecution against the petitioner before the trial companyrt.
Order in Original No.
Keeping the above in view the finding of the Adjudicating Authority about the appellant are number fair, legal and based on facts and hence the penalty imposed on the appellant is hereby set aside.
However, the statement of the respondent companyld number be recorded as inspite of numerous summons, he did number companyperate with the investigating authorities and remained in hiding.
On being asked about that he stated that neither did he know any person by name of Shri Varyam Singh number his telephone number on being asked about as to how telephone calls were made to telephone number 6914037 on 21.04.1996 three times and one time on 27.04.1996 from his mobile phone, he stated that he did number know the exact date but in the month of April, 1996, his younger brother Shri Pramod Kumar came to Delhi from Dubai as his mother was seriously ill, it might be possible that Shri Pramod Kumar had made four calls from his Kanwar Bhan mobile phone to telephone number 6914037 belonging to Shri Varyam Singh as he did number know Shri Varyam Singh and his telephone number.
66/99 dated 30.09.1999 was passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, IGI Airport, New Delhi imposing penalty of Rs.15 lacs on the respondent.
The High Court by its judgment and order under appeal, allowed the petition and quashed Complaint No.66/1/96 pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi.
The affidavit in support of the petition was filed by numbere other than Shri Kanwar Bhan, the brother of the respondent.
Following observations in the said order are numbereworthy In response to summons Shri Kanwar Bhan appeared before the Customs authorities and he in his further voluntary statement dated 30.8.1996 recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, stated that he was shown the record of details of call charges of Mobile phone number 9811028643 obtained from Essar Cell Phone mobile phone services, that on 21.04.1996 and 27.04.1996 telephone calls were made to telephone number 6914037 that he had been told that telephone number 6914037 belonged to Shri Varyam Singh and was his residence number and who had been arrested for smuggling of 184 gold biscuits.
The respondent was declared proclaimed offender by the Ld.
Thus the statement of Shri Varyam Singh who himself accepted as evidence whereas the claim of the appellant is supported by way of companyroborative statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act 1962 and documentary evidence is acceptable as credible evidence in his favour.
The aforesaid order dated 30.09.1999 was carried in appeal and the Commissioner of Customs Appeal vide his order dated 25.01.2008 set aside the penalty imposed on the respondent.
Thirty Two lacs and that the balance was invested by the respondent.
The Commissioner of Customs, Delhi accorded sanction on 04.09.1996 for the prosecution of the respondent, Varyam Singh, Ranbeer Singh and four others and accordingly Complaint No.
The authorities recorded the statements of all the persons involved.
2,00,000/ out of the profit that his share of investment in the gold seized on 9.7.1996 was Rs.
460 of 2009 was filed on behalf of the respondent in the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi.
ACMM, New Delhi in the subject case.
Moreover the appellant has number laid any claim on the impugned gold under seizure in this case.
Varyam Singh, inter alia, disclosed the name of one Pramod Kumar i.e. the respondent herein who invested the money with him in the seized gold as well as the gold smuggled on earlier occasions.
M.C. No.
P.C. and such exoneration certainly weighed with the High Court.
Uday U. Lalit, J. Leave granted.
The exoneration of the respondent in the adjudication proceedings was the basis for petition under Section 482 Cr.
This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 04.1.2011 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl.
In their statements, Varyam Singh and Ranbeer Singh admitted the recovery and seizure of gold and named other persons involved in the incident.
M.C. No.460 of 2009.
