Gangula Malleswari v. The State Of Telangana

[ 329e ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1619 OF 2018 Criminal Appeal Under Section 37 4(2) of Cr.P.C against the Judgment made in C.C.No.142120'16, Dt.08-05-2018 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge, for Economic Offences, at Hyderabad.

Between :

Gangula Malleswari, Rl/o.H.No.2/180, Raja Reddy Street, Kadapa, YSR District, Andhra Pradesh.

..ApellanUAccused AND The State of Telangana, Rep by its Special Public Prosecutor, High Court Bldgs, Hyderabad, the Assistant Commissioner (Prosecution),Customs Commissionarate, Hyderabad.

...RespodenUComplainant lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 482 CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the lower court i.e., Special Judge for Economic Offences Court, Hyderabad to return the Pass-port for interim custody bearing No.M5180824 for a period of One Year in the interests of justice.

: Sri B.Venu Kumar Counsel for the Appellant : Sri A.Rama Krishna Reddy, (SC For CBEC) Counsel for the Respondents The Court made the following :ORDER

/// / THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1619 OF 2018 JUDGMENT:

The present Criminal Appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated O8.05.2018 in C.C.No.142 of 2016 on the Iile of the learned Special Judge for Economic Offences_ cum-VIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (for short, "the trial Court").

2.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant/accused and Mr. A. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC). perused the record 3.

The brief facts of the case are that on L2.Il .2015 at Rajiv Gandhi International Airport (RGIA), Shamshabad, Hyderabad, the oflicers of the Customs intercepted the accused, who arrived by flight No.TG 329 from Bangkok to Hyderabad arrd on suspicion, the officers made the accused pass through the door frame metal detector, and found that the accused was in possession of 10 gold bars weighing 4600 grams in total valued at Rs.l,20,52,OOO/_ (Rupees

) EW,\ CrLA.No.1619 of 2018 One crore twenty lakhs fifty two thousand only)' The accused was not in possession of any valid permit/license/document issued by the competent authority for legal import of 10 gold bars weighing 4600 grams. Since the accused attempted to smuggle the gold against the restrictions imposed by law, by concealing them in her clothes, without declaring them in the customs declaration form, she rendered herself liable for the offences punishable under Sections 132 and 135 (1) (a) and (b) of Customs Act, 1962. On the basis of the allegations contained in the complaint and the documents filed in support of it, the trial Court took cognizance of the case for the offence punishable under Section 135 of Customs Act, 1962 against the accused on 24.O6.2016 and issued summons.

4.

The accused was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C and she denied the offence. The learned trial Court framed charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 132 and 135(1)(i)(A) of Customs Lg62 read over and explained to her in the language Act,

,17 l EW,J Crt-A.No.1619 o, 201A ,// , known to her, for which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During the course of inquiry, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 6 and marked Exs.Pl to pB before framing charges.

5.

Upon careful scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial Court vide judgment dated 08.05.2018 in C.C.No.142 of 2O16 found the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 132 and 135(1Xi)(A) of Customs Act, 1962 and accordingly, convicted and sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) and in default of payment of fine amount, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) months for the offence punishable under Section 135(1Xi)(A) of Customs Act, 1962 and she is also sentenced to pay line of Rs.10,0OO/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) and in default of payment of fine amount and also sentenced her to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) months for the offence punishable under Section 132 ol

CrLA.No,1619 of 20l Customs Act, 1962' Aggrieved thereby' the accused has preferred the present Criminal Appeal'

6.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in proper perspective and passed the impugned judgment. Therefore, he seeks to set aside the impugned judgment.

T.LearnedStandingCounselopposedthesameand contended that the trial Court upon appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record in right perspective passed the impugned judgment ald interference Therefore, he seeks to dismiss of this Court is unwarranted the Criminal APPeal'

B. A perusal of the record shows that this Court vide order dated 11.06'2018 granted interim suspension of the judgment passed by the trial Court till disposal of the Appeal and the appellant is enlarged on bail on her executing bond for a sum of Rs'25'0OO/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) with two sureties for the likesum each on the same terms and conditions as imposed by the trial

EVV,J CrI.A.No.1619 oJ 20lA Court while suspending the sentence. Thereafter, the matter underwent several adjournments.

9. In the case on hand, the trial Court held that the accused was guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 132 and 135(1)(i)(A) of Customs Act, L962 and there are no grounds, much less valid grounds, to interfere rvith the well considered judgment of the trial Court and hence, this Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

10. However, having regard to the mental agony suffered by the appellant/accused by roaming around the trial Court, this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence imposed against the appellant from one (1) year Rigorous Imprisonment to six (6) months Simple Imprisonment by duly setting off the period of imprisonment already undergone by her.

1 1. Except the above modification, in all other aspects, the lr Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.

CiLA.No.1619 oJ 2018 Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

K. SAILESHI -/, REGISTRAR '- DE sd/- //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 'o",. ,n" Special Judge' for Economic offences' at Hyderabad'(with records' if , ill ce to :1"'J:l:[;:ifl;HJ;.T?J3?y3BEC), Advocate roPUCr e. On" CC to Sri A'Ran

4. Two Cd CoPies Svs/ghw

t \ HIGH COURT DATED:1410812024 !i C:

( o il[\/ /

ORDER

i;

CRLA.No.1619 of 2018 DISMISSING THE CRLA G cod* tr"-.