Find a Lawyer

APPEAL NO.69/LB OF 1998, DECIDED ON 28TH JUNE, 2006. versus APPEAL NO.69/LB OF 1998, DECIDED ON 28TH JUNE, 2006.

Sections 2 (s), 16, 156 (1), CLS (8) and (89), 157 (2) and 178 Imports and Export (Control) Act (XNXX of 1950), section 3 ( 1) and 3 (3)) used for the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (VII VI of 1947), Sections 8 Cls (1), (2) and (3) Criminal Code of Conduct (V9 1898), Section 103 for trafficking conviction. Appellant claimed to have confiscated gold with the vehicle and fined every person involved in the case, saying the search and seizure was illegal because it was made by the Assistant Commissioner who had no authority to do so. The officer was not declared as. That the search and seizure was illegal, the subsequent proceedings were illegal and could not be sustained in the eyes of the law. That no independent witness was cited in the proceedings which was a violation of Section 103, CR PC. Extension of time for issuance of showcase notices by Collector Customs was granted without giving any reason, even after expiry of the first two months and no one under Section 171 of the Customs Act 1969 The notice was not issued, nor was any police officer able to recover the bulk of the gold from two places, which meant that there was no dispute between the parties on the recovery aspect. In such a situation, keeping the legal customs aside, for example who smuggled gold, who were witnesses or whether the provisions of section 103, CRPC were violated, the main burden of proof The man was in custody who smuggled it. The goods were recovered when it was raided when it was reported that the alleged us immigration advocates from Chaghi lawyer