Case Law Details
Mohammed Sabir Vs Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs (Kerala High Court)
Introduction: This article delves into the legal proceedings of Mohammed Sabir, challenging his conviction under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, in Kerala High Court. The focus is on the petitioner’s grievances regarding the appeal process and the subsequent court decision.
Detailed Analysis:
Background of the Case: Mohammed Sabir faced trial in C.C.No.302 of 2016 for Customs Act violations. The trial court found him guilty, leading to his conviction and sentencing. Dissatisfied with the judgment, Sabir filed Crl. Appeal No.321 of 2019 before the Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Ernakulam.
Appeal Proceedings: The petitioner alleges that his appeal was dismissed without affording him an opportunity to present his case. His counsel could not appear due to practical inconvenience, and the Appellate Court proceeded with the hearing without considering the appellant’s side.
Legal Grounds and Precedent: The petitioner contends that the dismissal of the appeal without hearing his counsel violates the principles established by the Supreme Court in Sukur Ali v. State of Assam (2011). The apex court emphasized the importance of hearing the accused or appointing an Amicus Curiae when the accused’s counsel is absent.
Court’s Decision: In light of Sukur Ali, the Kerala High Court finds the judgment of the Additional Sessions Court-VI, Ernakulam, unsustainable. The court sets aside the judgment and remits the appeal back to the Additional Sessions Judge-VI, directing a fresh hearing with an opportunity for both parties.
Conclusion: The Kerala High Court’s decision to allow Mohammed Sabir’s revision petition highlights the significance of ensuring a fair hearing for the accused. The case serves as a reminder of the legal obligations to provide an opportunity for the defense, as established by precedent. The proceedings will continue before the Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Ernakulam, ensuring a fair chance for both sides to present their arguments.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
The petitioner questions the correctness, legality and propriety of the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Ernakulam in Crl. Appeal No.321 of 2019 by which the judgment of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam in C.C.No.302 of 2016 was confirmed.
2. In C.C.No.302 of 2016 the petitioner was the sole accused. He stood trial for the offence punishable under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The learned Magistrate found him guilty, convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months under Section 132 of the Customs Act and to undergo simple imprisonment for one year besides payment of find of Rs.10,000/-, in default three months simple imprisonment under Section 135 of the Customs Act. He preferred Crl. Appeal No.321 of 2019 before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam. The Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Ernakulam, before whom the appeal came up for hearing, dismissed that appeal as per the judgment dated 07.05.2022. The grievance of the petitioner is that his appeal was dismissed without giving him an opportunity of being heard.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Customs.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that owing to a practical inconvenience, he could not appear before the Sessions Court when the appeal was taken up for consideration. The Appellate Court, however, proceeded to decide the appeal after hearing the counsel for the respondent alone. It is submitted that since the counsel of the appellant was not heard and no Amicus Curiae appointed to present the case of the appellant, the judgment of the appellate court is invalid in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sukur Ali v. State of Assam [(2011 (4) SCC 729]. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent conceded that the Appellate Court decided the appeal without hearing the counsel of the appellant.
5. In Sukur Ali (supra), the Apex Court held that in the absence of a counsel; whatever be the reasons, the case should not be decided against the accused. In such a situation the court should appoint a counsel, who is practising on the criminal side as Amicus Curiae and decide the case after fixing another date and hearing him.
6. In the light of the aforesaid proposition of law, judgment dated 06.02.2022 in Crl. Appeal No.321 of 2019 of the Additional Sessions Court-VI, Ernakulam, which was rendered without hearing the appellant-accused is unsustainable in law. Therefore, the Revision Petition is allowed and the judgment of Appellate Court is set aside. The appeal is remitted to the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Ernakulam, who will decide the appeal, after affording an opportunity of being heard to both sides. Both parties shall appear before the Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Ernakulam on 27.11.2023.
