Dismissed

Union of India v. Suresh Kumar U.Jain and Anr.

Bombay HC4 Oct 2006APEAL/474/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In special criminal appeals against acquittal under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, the High Court of Bombay Criminal Appeal Jurisdiction rejected the prayer for leave to appeal. It held that the Magistrate's view was possible on the record due to lack of proof regarding the seizure panchanama.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for leave to appeal rejected; appeals dismissed.

Union of India Vs Suresh Kumar U.Jain and Anr. — Bombay HC (2006) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 474 OF 2003. WITH

¶3

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 475 OF 2003.

Union of India.

... Appellant.

(In both appeals)

Versus.

Suresh Kumar U.Jain.

... Respondent. (In both appeals)

¶10

Shri R.F.Lambay, P.P. for the Appellant in both appeals. Shri A.S.Shitole, A.P.P. for State.

¶11

CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J.

¶12

DATED : 4th October, 2006.

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

1.	Heard	Shri Lam	bay for	the Appellant.	The fa	cts
of both	the	Appeals		are same	an	d th	erefore,	I	am
referring	to t	he	facts	of Crim	inal	Appeal	No.474		of
2003.	I have	heard	Shri	Lambay	for	the	Appellant	on	the
prayer	for grant	of		leave to		prefer	Appeal.		The
acquittal	of	the	1st	Respondent	is	under	section		8(1)
and	8(2) of	the	For	eign Excha	nge	Regulatio	n Act,		1973
punishable	under	section	56	of the	said	Act.	The		case
of the	prosecution	is	based	on t	he	seizure	of the		Indian
Currency	from	the	1st	Respondent	whic	h is	reflected		in
the	seizure	panchan	ama.	The	prose	cution	also		relied

¶15

upon the statement of the Respondent No.1 which has been

¶16

retracted by him subsequently.

¶17

2.	The	learne	d Magistrate hel	d that in	view of the
retraction	of	the	statement,	the	same	cannot	be	relied

¶18

upon unless the contents thereof were corroborated by a

¶19

: 2 :

¶20

direct and/or circumstantial evidence.

¶21

3.		The find	ing recor	de	d by the l	earned Magistrate
is	that	for	provin	g	the	seizure pan	chanama,	the	panch
witnesses	were	not	exami	ne	d on	the gro	und	that they	were
not	traceabl	e.	Furth	er	find	ing is re	corded	that	P.W.1
Rane,	in	his	cross-ex	am	ination	pointed o	ut th	at he	had
no	knowledge	of	the		contents	of the	panc	hanama.	The
said	witness	also	admit	te	d tha	t he did	not	remember	as
to	who	dictated	the		panchana	ma to the	scribe.	He	was
not	able	to	say		whether	he himself	had	dictated	the
panchanam	a.	A	doubt		is	also created	about	the pla	ce at
which	the	panchana	ma	wa	s mad	e. Thus	the	learned	Judge
came	to	the	conclusio	n	th	at panchana	ma	regarding	seizure
of	Indian	currency	was		not	at all prov	ed.	The	learned
Judge	has	held	that		there	was no	corrobor	ation to	the

¶22

retracted statement of the Respondent No.1 and hence the

¶23

order of acquittal has been passed.

¶24

4.	Af	ter hearing the l	earned A	dvocate a	ppearing f	or
the	Appellant	I find	that	the	view	taken	by	the	learned
Magistrate	is	a p	ossible	view	which	could		have	been
taken	on the	basis of	the	eviden	ce on	record.		No	case

¶25

is made out for grant of leave. Prayer for leave is

¶26

rejected. The Appeals are dismissed.

¶27

Judge.

Union of India v. Suresh Kumar U.Jain and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Suresh Kumar U.Jain and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesh Sadanand Majti Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sudha Ravi Vs Nazir Mohammed Hussain and Anr.

Lilatai Visshwanath Patil Vs Anantprasad Vedavyasa Umerji and Anr.

Gopalkrishna Udayram Rathi Vs Shri.Noor Ilahi Allameher Malik and Anr.

Vimal Pandurang Karanjkar Vs Vinayak Shrikrishna Londhe and Anr.

Municipal Cor. of Gr.Bombay Vs Paresh Mansukhlal Chitalia and Anr.