1. Heard learned advocate Mr.S.K. Patel for the applicant and Mr.Yogesh Ravani learned Central Government standing counsel for respondents.
2. Mr.
Patel, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that statement under Section 108 of the Customs' Act of the accused was recorded when he was in police custody and therefore, it was not admissible in evidence and hence, the Courts below committee error in relying upon such evidence.
3. In view of the above, Rule.
4. As regards the prayer of suspension of order of substantive sentence of imprisonment, I have heard learned advocate Mr.Patel for the applicant and Mr.Ravani learned Central Government standing counsel for respondents.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Patel submitted that applicant is in custody and has undergone imprisonment of about four months out of imprisonment of one year imposed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the lower Appellate Court. He also submitted that fine has been paid.
6. In view of the above, as the applicant has undergone sentence of about four months out of the imprisonment imposed upon him and it is not likely that the Revision Application would be heard and decided within short time, the order of substantive sentence of imprisonment is required to be suspended and the applicant is required to be released on bail till final disposal of Revision Application.
7. Hence, the order of substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial Court and confirmed by the lower appellate Court is suspended and the applicant is ordered to be released on bail during the pendency of Revision Application on his executing a bond of Rs. 5,000/- with a surety of like amount before the trial Court on usual terms.
8. Direct service is permitted.
(BANKIM N. MEHTA, J) mehul Top