Dismissed

Vasu Kunjikannan Maniyattoo v. Asst.Collector of Customs

Kerala HC3 Aug 2007Crl.Rev.Pet/100/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court of Kerala dismissed the petition challenging the conviction and sentence under section 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act for smuggling gold biscuits, upholding the lower courts' appreciation of evidence.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition is dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence under Section 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act.

Vasu Kunjikannan Maniyattoo Vs Asst.Collector of Customs — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2007 / 12TH SRAVANA 1929

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 100 of 1998()

¶6

----------------------------CRA.378/1996 of V ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.68/1993 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (E & O),ERNAKULAM

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER:

¶8

¶9

VASU KUNJIKANNAN MANIYATTOO, S/O.KUNJIKKANNAN, PANAYADU VEEDU, NARAVOOR, KOOTHUPARAMBIL PO, CANNANORE.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.D.PEETHAMBARAN SRI.VINOD VALLIKAPPAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

1. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR, AIR CUSTOMS, TRIVANDRUM.

¶14

2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI. AJITH KRISHNAN, ADDL.CGSC

¶16

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/08/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶19

Crl. R.P. No. 100 OF 1998

¶20

Dated this the 3^rd day of August, 2007

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The revision petitioner, who was the accused in C.C.No.68/93 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, (Economic Offences), Ernakulam for an offence punishable under section 135 (1)(i) of the Customs Act, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him concurrently by the courts below for the aforesaid offence.

¶23

The case of the prosecution can be summarized as

¶24

follows:-

¶25

On 25.8.1992 the accused arrived at the

¶26

Thiruvananthapuram International Airport from Muscat. When PW1, the Intelligence Superintendent attached to the Air Customs, Thiruvananthapuram intercepted him and conducted a body search of the revision petitioner, it resulted in the recovery of 17 gold biscuits of foreign origin kept concealed in the under garments worn by the revision petitioner. The gold biscuits were found to be of 24 carat purity and weighed 1980.500 gms. They were seized under Ext.P2 mahazar. Since the revision petitioner

¶27

Crl.R.P.No.100/98

¶28

: 2 :

¶29

had no documents to prove the legal importation of the aforesaid foreign biscuits, he had smuggled the same to India in violation of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and Customs Act and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act. The gold biscuits were having a market value of Rs.7,92,200/- (Rupees seven lakhs ninety two thousand two hundred only).

¶30

On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against him by the court below for the aforementioned offence, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined five witnesses as PWs 1 to 5 and got marked 11 documents as Exhibits P1 to P11.

¶31

The revision petitioner denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the prosecution. He did not adduce any defence evidence.

¶32

The learned Magistrate after trial, as per judgment dated 5.11.1996 convicted the revision petitioner for the offence charged against him and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.40,000/-

¶33

Crl.R.P.No.100/98

¶34

: 3 :

¶35

(Rupees forty thousand only) and on default to pay the fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. An appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the V Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam as Criminal Appeal No.378/96 was dismissed confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him. It is the said judgments which are assailed in this revision.

¶36

Both the courts have recorded the finding after an evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence in the case. I do not find any infirmity in the appreciation of evidence by the courts below. The conviction was rightly recorded against the revision petitioner. This revision which is devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed.

¶37

(V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE)

aks

Crl.R.P.No.100/98

: 4 :

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

Crl. R.P. No. 100 OF 1998

¶43

O R D E R

¶44

3^rd day of August, 2007

Vasu Kunjikannan Maniyattoo v. Asst.Collector of Customs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasu Kunjikannan Maniyattoo v. Asst.Collector of Customs

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

C.K.Abdulla Vs Sajeendran

Zachariah P.S. Vs State of Kerala

Benny Vs Flory

Danesh Vs State of Kerala

Surendran M.K. Vs State of Kerala

Elikkottil Aboobacker Vs S.I. of Police