In a significant case the Kerala high court while allowing the revision petition filed by the petitioner observed that appeal against the offence punishable under Section 132 of the Custom Act 1962 disposed of without hearing the petitioner.
The Petitioner Mohammed Sabir convicted under Section 132 of the Customs Act by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge VI, Ernakulam. Who dismissed the appeal without providing opportunity to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner filed the revision petition against the order.
The counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that Appellate Court, proceeded to decide the appeal after hearing the counsel for the respondent alone.
Further submitted that the appeal court’s decision is void since the petitioner’s counsel was not heard and no Amicus Curiae was assigned to present the petitioner’s argument.
Thus, according to the decision of Md.Sukur Ali v. State of Assam argued 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 practicing on the criminal side as Amicus Curiae and decide the case after fixing another date and hearing him”.
After analyzing the facts and arguments of the both parties a single bench of Justice P.G. Ajithkumar, observed that appeal against the offense punishable under Section 132 of the Custom Act disposed of without hearing the petitioner by the Additional Sessions Court-VI, Ernakulam.
Therefore, the bench allowed the revision petition.
S.Manu, Standing Counsel, Central Board Of Excise appeared for respondent and Advs. Manu Tom Balamurali K.P. K.R.Jithin M.B.Soori Shaji T.M. Renil Iqubal K. Haripriya.M appeared for the petitioner.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
