Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 342

Law: Customs Act, 1969

Section: 156(1), (8), (77), (i)

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)  S. 342--Statement of accused-Piece of circumstantial evidence not Put to accused in S. 342 statement.-Cannot be taken into consideration at trial. (b) Customs Act (IV of 1969) Ss. 156(1), Cls. (8) & (77) (i) and Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 342-Smuggling-Explanation of accused raising reasonable probability of being- true as to circumstances relied upon to establish offence-Defence evidence kept in juxtaposition. with prosecution testimony showing clear probability that accused who was taken to International Arrival Lounge at Airport as a transit passenger by airline staff had no intention to smuggle goods found in his possession-Benefit of doubt in such circumstances must go to accused--No evidence, except oral allegation, that accused refused to make a declaration-Held, for same reasons, conviction of accused for minor offence under cl. (77) (i) not maintainable. -[Benefit of doubt].                                                                                                                          JUDGMENT The appellant who is an Indian National has been convicted by the learned Special Judge, Customs, Karachi under Clause 77 (i) of ; section 156(1) of the Customs Act, 1969 and sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month. The appellant has also been convicted under Clause (8) of section 156(1) of the Customs Act, 1969 and sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment for I I months and to pay .a fine Rs. 2 lacs or in default to suffer further Simple Imprisonment for 2 years.. The appellant has appealed against his covictions and sentences. 2. The prosecution case is that information was received that. a passenger-in-transit would be arriving at the Karachi Airport from Hong Kong by Lufthansa flight to smuggle a huge quantity of precious stones. Pursuant to this information on 29th May, 1979…