AIR CUSTOMS OFFICER IGI NEW DELHI versus PRAMOD KUMAR DHAMIJA

Citation: [2016] 2 S.C.R. 561 · Decided: 15-02-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. GOPALA GOWDA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 2 S.C.R. 561 
AIR CUSTOMS OFFICER IGI NEW DELHI 
v. 
PRAMOD KUMAR DHAMIJA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 123of2016) 
FEBRUARY 15, 2016 
[V. GOPALA GOWDA AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.] 
Customs Act, 1962: Smuggling - 184 gold biscuits of JO to/as 
each concealed in the meal trolleys by two passengers of the aircraft 
of Liifthansa Airlines - In their statements, they admitted the recovery 
of gold biscuits and disclosed that respondent had invested the 
money in the gold recovered as well as the gold smuggled on earlier 
occasions - Criminal case filed against the respondent -
Adjudicating proceedings also initiatecf against him under the 
Customs Act - By order dated 30.9.1999, penalty imposed on 
respondent by Additional Commissioner of Customs - The order set 
aside by Commissioner on the ground that there were two persons 
having same name, one in Dubai and second being the respondent 
and that beyond the statement of co-accused there was no material 
on record - Petition for quashing of complaint filed in High Court 
- In the petition itself, two addresses of respondent were given -
High Court alloll'ed the petition and quashed the complaint - On 
appeal, held: Appellate order dated 30.9.1999. disclosed that the 
passenger alleged the involvement of the respondent - In law, if 
such statement is otherwise admissible and reliable, conviction 
can lai•fu//y rest on such material - The finding in the appellate 
order that there were two Pramod Kumars was completely incorrect 
- In the backdrop of these facts, it cannot be accepted that the 
exoneration of the respondent in the adjudication proceeding was 
on merits or that he was found completely innocent - Considering 
the facts and circumstances of the case, High Court was not right 
and justified in accepting the prayer for quashing of the 
proceedings. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The order in original dated 30.09.1999 referred 
to the statement of.the brother of the respondent clearly suggests 
561 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
562 
A 
13 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 
that the respondent (Pramod Kumar) had come down to Delhi in 
April, 1996. This st'1tement was not even referred to in the 
appellate order dated 30.09.1999 but a finding is rendered that 
the respondent had not visited India after September, 1994. The 
respondent was declared a proclaimed offender and had not 
participated in any of the proceedings personally. In the 
circumstances, no weightage could be given to copies of the 
passport submitted in support of the assertion that he had not 
visited India after September 1994. The appellate order further 
disclosed that the statement of the passenger did allege the 
involvement of the respondent. In law, if such statement is 
otherwise admissible and reliable, conviction can lawfully rest 
on such material. The finding in the appellate order that there 
were two Pramod Kumars was completely incorrect. In the 
backdrop of these facts, it cannot be accepted that the 
exoneration of the respondent in the adjudication proceeding was 
on merits or that he was found completely innocent. Considering 
the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court was not 
justified in accepting the 11rayer for quashing of the 11roceedings. 
lf'aras 8, 9) [568-G-H; 569-A-E) 
Collector of Customs v. L.R. Me/wani (1969) 2 SCR 
438; K. G Premshankar \'. Inspector of Police (2002) 
8 SCC 87: 2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 350; Radheshyam 
Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal and Another (2011) 3 
SCC 581: 2011 (4) SCR 889 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
( 1969) 2 SCR 438 
referred to 
Para 4 
2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 350 
referred to 
Para 6 
2011 (4) SCR 889 
referred to 
Paras 7, 8 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 123 of2016. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.0I.2011 in Criminal No. 
460 of2009 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. 
Ms. Ranjana Narayan, Ms. Sushma Manchanda, B. Krishna 
Prasad for the appellant. 
Naveen Malhotra. Rishi Malhotra for the respondent. 
AIR CUSTOMS OFFICER IGI NEW DELHI v. 
PRAMOD KUMAR Dl-IAMIJA 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
UDAY U. LALIT, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 04.1.2011 
passed by the High Cou1t of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl. M.C. No.460 of 
2009. 
3. That the facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as under:-
( A) On the basis of specific information. AIR Customs Officers 
(Preventive) at IGI Airport. New Del
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.