Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.29 seconds)
Sanjay Kumar Agrawal vs State Of U.P. And Another on 22 October, 2019 cites

Om Prakash & Anr vs Union Of India & Anr on 30 September, 2011

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State have next submitted that both the accused persons, namely, the applicant and the co-accused Mahendra Soni were travelling together, therefore, recovery is to be seen in that manner and five gold bars of 4,996.05 grams, which were of the value of Rs. 1, 67,36, 767/- has been done from the applicant as well as from the co-accused Mahendra Soni. It is further submitted that the same were seized under Section 110 of the Act, 1962 under the reasonable plea that they have brought the alleged gold bars India from Bangladesh in violation of provisions of Sections 7 (1) (C), 11 and 46 of the Act, 1962 read with Rule 3 (2) & (3) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1962 and Rules 11 and 12 of the Rules, 1993. They have next submitted that the recovered gold bars were liable to be confiscated under Section 111 of the Act, 1962. The panchnama proceedings were also drawn in the presence of two independent witnesses. It is further submitted that the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant in the case of Om Prakash & Another (Supra) has no application as the recovered gold bars as prohibited goods, as defined under Section 2 (33) of the Act, 1962.
Supreme Court of India Cites 67 - Cited by 32 - A Kabir - Full Document
1