Top 10 Criminal Defenses in a Gold Smuggling Case

0
69
Top 10 Criminal Defenses in a Gold Smuggling Case
DIGITAL MARKETING

Gold Smuggling is a criminal offence and attracts penal laws. There are innumerable cases where a person is maliciously prosecuted for Gold Smuggling. Thus, by way of this article an attempt is made to create awareness and education amongst the public at large with respect to their legal rights vis a vis the criminal defences available to them. Hereinbelow we have enumerated the top ten criminal defences which are available to the alleged accused who is charged with the criminal offence of Gold Smuggling. These criminal defences can be well applied and/or availed by the alleged accused to defend himself/herself in a given case and the entire subject matter is well supported with the decisions and dictums passed by different Courts.

Top Ten Criminal Defenses in a Gold Smuggling Case:

  1. Requisition before Search: On reasonable suspicion, an officer of customs or any other concerned officer is empowered by section 101(1) of the Customs Act (CA), 1962 to search any person who is secretive about his identity or goods. But, section 102(1) of the Customs Act (CA), 1962 confers the right to the affected person, who is to be searched, to ask the officer of customs or any other concerned officer to conduct the search in presence of the gazetted officer of customs or the Magistrate and then the officer is bound to comply the request of the affected person. The officer must inform the affected person about the right or give an option to him. The object behind such a right is to ensure that no person is framed or trapped by the officer of customs or any other concerned officer. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Yusuf Suleman Hattie v. V.M. Doshi, Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Bombay and Another [Cri. Appeal No. 9/ 1995] has held that section 102(1) of the Customs Act (CA) is of mandatory nature and non-compliance of it would vitiate the proceedings and conviction based upon such search and seizure will be liable to set aside.
  2. Requisition before Search: On reasonable suspicion, an officer of customs or any other concerned officer is empowered by section 101(1) of the Customs Act (CA), 1962 to search any person who is secretive about his identity or goods. But, section 102(1) of the Customs Act (CA), 1962 confers the right to the affected person, who is to be searched, to ask the officer of customs or any other concerned officer to conduct the search in presence of the gazetted officer of customs or the Magistrate and then the officer is bound to comply the request of the affected person. The officer must inform the affected person about the right or give an option to him. The object behind such a right is to ensure that no person is framed or trapped by the officer of customs or any other concerned officer. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Yusuf Suleman Hattie v. V.M. Doshi, Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Bombay and Another [Cri. Appeal No. 9/ 1995] has held that section 102(1) of the Customs Act (CA) is of mandatory nature and non-compliance of it would vitiate the proceedings and conviction based upon such search and seizure will be liable to set aside.
  3. Requisition before Search: On reasonable suspicion, an officer of customs or any other concerned officer is empowered by section 101(1) of the Customs Act (CA), 1962 to search any person who is secretive about his identity or goods. But, section 102(1) of the Customs Act (CA), 1962 confers the right to the affected person, who is to be searched, to ask the officer of customs or any other concerned officer to conduct the search in presence of the gazetted officer of customs or the Magistrate and then the officer is bound to comply the request of the affected person. The officer must inform the affected person about the right or give an option to him. The object behind such a right is to ensure that no person is framed or trapped by the officer of customs or any other concerned officer. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Yusuf Suleman Hattie v. V.M. Doshi, Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Bombay and Another [Cri. Appeal No. 9/ 1995] has held that section 102(1) of the Customs Act (CA) is of mandatory nature and non-compliance of it would vitiate the proceedings and conviction based upon such search and seizure will be liable to set aside.
  4. Requisition before Search: On reasonable suspicion, an officer of customs or any other concerned officer is empowered by section 101(1) of the Customs Act (CA), 1962 to search any person who is secretive about his identity or goods. But, section 102(1) of the Customs Act (CA), 1962 confers the right to the affected person, who is to be searched, to ask the officer of customs or any other concerned officer to conduct the search in presence of the gazetted officer of customs or the Magistrate and then the officer is bound to comply the request of the affected person. The officer must inform the affected person about the right or give an option to him. The object behind such a right is to ensure that no person is framed or trapped by the officer of customs or any other concerned officer. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Yusuf Suleman Hattie v. V.M. Doshi, Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Bombay and Another [Cri. Appeal No. 9/ 1995] has held that section 102(1) of the Customs Act (CA) is of mandatory nature and non-compliance of it would vitiate the proceedings and conviction based upon such search and seizure will be liable to set aside.
  5. Requisition before Search: On reasonable suspicion, an officer of customs or any other concerned officer is empowered by section 101(1) of the Customs Act (CA), 1962 to search any person who is secretive about his identity or goods. But, section 102(1) of the Customs Act (CA), 1962 confers the right to the affected person, who is to be searched, to ask the officer of customs or any other concerned officer to conduct the search in presence of the gazetted officer of customs or the Magistrate and then the officer is bound to comply the request of the affected person. The officer must inform the affected person about the right or give an option to him. The object behind such a right is to ensure that no person is framed or trapped by the officer of customs or any other concerned officer. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Yusuf Suleman Hattie v. V.M. Doshi, Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Bombay and Another [Cri. Appeal No. 9/ 1995] has held that section 102(1) of the Customs Act (CA) is of mandatory nature and non-compliance of it would vitiate the proceedings and conviction based upon such search and seizure will be liable to set aside.
  6. Requisition before Search: On reasonable suspicion, an officer of customs or any other concerned officer is empowered by section 101(1) of the Customs Act (CA), 1962 to search any person who is secretive about his identity or goods. But, section 102(1) of the Customs Act (CA), 1962 confers the right to the affected person, who is to be searched, to ask the officer of customs or any other concerned officer to conduct the search in presence of the gazetted officer of customs or the Magistrate and then the officer is bound to comply the request of the affected person. The officer must inform the affected person about the right or give an option to him. The object behind such a right is to ensure that no person is framed or trapped by the officer of customs or any other concerned officer. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Yusuf Suleman Hattie v. V.M. Doshi, Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Bombay and Another [Cri. Appeal No. 9/ 1995] has held that section 102(1) of the Customs Act (CA) is of mandatory nature and non-compliance of it would vitiate the proceedings and conviction based upon such search and seizure will be liable to set aside.
  7. Requisition before Search: On reasonable suspicion, an officer of customs or any other concerned officer is empowered by section 101(1) of the Customs Act (CA), 1962 to search any person who is secretive about his identity or goods. But, section 102(1) of the Customs Act (CA), 1962 confers the right to the affected person, who is to be searched, to ask the officer of customs or any other concerned officer to conduct the search in presence of the gazetted officer of customs or the Magistrate and then the officer is bound to comply the request of the affected person. The officer must inform the affected person about the right or give an option to him. The object behind such a right is to ensure that no person is framed or trapped by the officer of customs or any other concerned officer. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Yusuf Suleman Hattie v. V.M. Doshi, Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Bombay and Another [Cri. Appeal No. 9/ 1995] has held that section 102(1) of the Customs Act (CA) is of mandatory nature and non-compliance of it would vitiate the proceedings and conviction based upon such search and seizure will be liable to set aside.
  8. Requisition before Search: On reasonable suspicion, an officer of customs or any other concerned officer is empowered by section 101(1) of the Customs Act (CA), 1962 to search any person who is secretive about his identity or goods. But, section 102(1) of the Customs Act (CA), 1962 confers the right to the affected person, who is to be searched, to ask the officer of customs or any other concerned officer to conduct the search in presence of the gazetted officer of customs or the Magistrate and then the officer is bound to comply the request of the affected person. The officer must inform the affected person about the right or give an option to him. The object behind such a right is to ensure that no person is framed or trapped by the officer of customs or any other concerned officer. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Yusuf Suleman Hattia v. V.M. Doshi, Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Bombay and Another [Cri. Appeal No. 9/ 1995] has held that section 102(1) of the Customs Act (CA) is of mandatory nature and non-compliance of it would vitiate the proceedings and conviction based upon such search and seizure will be liable to set aside.
  9. Requisition before Search: On reasonable suspicion, an officer of customs or any other concerned officer is empowered by section 101(1) of the Customs Act (CA), 1962 to search any person who is secretive about his identity or goods. But, section 102(1) of the Customs Act (CA), 1962 confers the right to the affected person, who is to be searched, to ask the officer of customs or any other concerned officer to conduct the search in presence of the gazetted officer of customs or the Magistrate and then the officer is bound to comply the request of the affected person. The officer must inform the affected person about the right or give an option to him. The object behind such a right is to ensure that no person is framed or trapped by the officer of customs or any other concerned officer. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Yusuf Suleman Hattia v. V.M. Doshi, Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Bombay and Another [Cri. Appeal No. 9/ 1995] has held that section 102(1) of the Customs Act (CA) is of mandatory nature and non-compliance of it would vitiate the proceedings and conviction based upon such search and seizure will be liable to set aside.
  10. Requisition before Search: On reasonable suspicion, an officer of customs or any other concerned officer is empowered by section 101(1) of the Customs Act (CA), 1962 to search any person who is secretive about his identity or goods. But, section 102(1) of the Customs Act (CA), 1962 confers the right to the affected person, who is to be searched, to ask the officer of customs or any other concerned officer to conduct the search in presence of the gazetted officer of customs or the Magistrate and then the officer is bound to comply the request of the affected person. The officer must inform the affected person about the right or give an option to him. The object behind such a right is to ensure that no person is framed or trapped by the officer of customs or any other concerned officer. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Yusuf Suleman Hattia v. V.M. Doshi, Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Bombay and Another [Cri. Appeal No. 9/ 1995] has held that section 102(1) of the Customs Act (CA) is of mandatory nature and non-compliance of it would vitiate the proceedings and conviction based upon such search and seizure will be liable to set aside.

After perusal of the aforementioned criminal defences available with the alleged accused, it can be easily construed that the alleged accused have enough defences with him/her to successfully defend himself/herself. Moreover, the aforementioned defences are not exhaustive, there can be more defences available based on the facts and circumstances of every case. The best legal advice which can be given in the case of gold smuggling is to be well aware and well educated about the criminal defences available.

Authored By; Adv. Anant Sharma & Satwik Sharma

Credit: www.mylawyersadvice.com

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here