KANPUR: Special chief judicial magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, on Tuesday acquitted perfume trader Piyush Kumar Jain in the gold confiscation case based on compounding and immunity from prosecution granted by the customs department.
In the order, the presiding judge observed that the accused had complied with the conditions of chief commissioner customs (preventive) zone, Patna and so was being acquitted.
Jain was arrested by the DGGI Ahmedabad on Dec 27, 2021 after seizure of Rs 196.57 crore cash and around 23 kg gold bars from his possession after a search operation carried out over five days. The gold bar case was transferred to the directorate of revenue intelligence (DRI) unit which prosecuted Jain under section 135 (1) (I) (A) of Customs Act, 1962.
The DRI had confiscated all the gold bars worth Rs 11,37,35,000 and slapped a penalty of Rs 60 lakh on April 13, 2023.
Jain had filed an appeal against the order of the additional commissioner, DRI and maintained his claim on gold. Later during the hearing, he changed his mind and submitted that "he did not want to litigate the matter and wanted mental peace".
Thereafter, Jain filed another application for compounding the case under section 137 (3) CrPC read with compounding of offence rules before the chief commissioner of customs (preventive) zone, Patna.
The chief commissioner, in his order dated Dec 18, 2023, allowed the compounding on certain terms and conditions, including payment of compounding amount of Rs 56,86,750 within 30 days.
Another condition was that he would not make any claim against the confiscated gold and other articles.
Jain relinquishes his claim on gold and deposited Rs 56,86,750 on Dec 29, 2023. Thereafter, on Jan 31, he moved an application along with the order of chief commissioner of customs (preventive) and deposited the receipt in the court of special chief judicial magistrate, Kanpur Nagar.
In her order, the presiding judge observed that the prosecution had verified that the accused had deposited the penalty amount and did not mention any case regarding the claim of confiscated articles. Therefore, the accused was being acquitted.
Start a Conversation
Post comment