{"id":17769,"date":"1988-08-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1988-08-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-akhtar-hussain-alias-vs-assistant-collector-of-customs-on-31-august-1988"},"modified":"2018-08-27T15:16:17","modified_gmt":"2018-08-27T09:46:17","slug":"mohd-akhtar-hussain-alias-vs-assistant-collector-of-customs-on-31-august-1988","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-akhtar-hussain-alias-vs-assistant-collector-of-customs-on-31-august-1988","title":{"rendered":"Mohd. Akhtar Hussain Alias … vs Assistant Collector Of Customs … on 31 August, 1988"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Mohd. Akhtar Hussain Alias … vs Assistant Collector Of Customs … on 31 August, 1988<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 2143, \t\t 1988 SCR Supl. (2) 747<\/div>\n
Author: K Shetty<\/div>\n
Bench: Shetty, K.J. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMOHD. AKHTAR HUSSAIN ALIAS IBRAHIM AHMED BHATTI\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nASSISTANT COLLECTOR  OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTION)AHMEDABAD & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT31\/08\/1988\n\nBENCH:\nSHETTY, K.J. (J)\nBENCH:\nSHETTY, K.J. (J)\nOZA, G.L. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1988 AIR 2143\t\t  1988 SCR  Supl. (2) 747\n 1988 SCC  (4) 183\t  JT 1988 (3)\t586\n 1988 SCALE  (2)552\n\n\nACT:\n    Criminal  Procedure Code,  1973,  Section  427-Sentence-\nConcurrent or consecutive-Principles to be followed.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The appellant was charged under section 95(l)(ii) of the\nGold (Control) Act, 1968 pursuant to seizure of 7,000  tolas\nof foreign mark gold from his possession. He pleaded  guilty\nto the charge and was convicted and sentenced to the maximum\npunishment  of\timprisonment for 7 years and fine  of  Rs.10\nlakhs  prescribed under the Act. On appeal, the\t High  Court\nconfirmed that sentence but reduced the fine to Rs.5  lakhs.\nThe Supreme Court confirmed the sentence in a special  Leave\npetition  filed\t by the appellant. While the  appellant\t was\nunder  judicial custody, he was again prosecuted along\twith\n19 others under section 135 of the Customs Act for smuggling\nof  gold  and export of silver out of India.  The  appellant\npleaded guilty to the charge and was convicted and sentenced\nfor  4\tyears R.I. with fine of Rs.2 lakhs by  trial  court.\nBoth   sentences  were\tordered\t to  run  consecutively.  On\nappeal, the High Court enhanced the sentence from 4 years to\nthe  maximum prescribed punishment of 7 years on the  ground\nthat  the enormity of the crime committed by  the  appellant\nwarranted nothing else than the maximum sentence.\n    Allowing the appeal by the appellant on the question  of\nsentence,\n    HELD: 1. Section 427, Cr. P.C. relates to administration\nof  criminal justice and provides procedure for\t sentencing.\nThe  basic  rule  of thumb over the years has  been  the  so\ncalled single transaction rule for concurrent sentences.  If\na  given  transaction constitutes two  offences\t  under\t two\nenactments  generally,\tit  is\twrong  to  have\t consecutive\nsentences.  It is proper and legitimate to  have  concurrent\nsentences.   But  this\trule  has  no  application  if\t the\ntransaction  relating  to offences is not the  same  or\t the\nfacts\t constituting\tthe   two   offences\tare    quite\ndifferent.[751C,D-E]\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 746\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 747\n    2(i) The enormity of the crime committed by the  accused\nis  relevant  for measuring the sentence.  But\tthe  maximum\nsentence awarded in one case against the same accused is not\nirrelevant  for consideration while giving  the\t consecutive\nsentence in the second case although it is grave. The  court\nhas  to\t consider the totality of the  sentences  which\t the\naccused\t has  to  under\t go  if\t the  sentences\t are  to  be\nconsecutive.  The  totality principle has been\taccepted  as\ncorrect principle for guidance. [753E.F]\n    R. v. Edward Charles French, [1982] Cr. App. R. (S) p. 1\nat 6, referred to.\n    In\tthe  instant  case, the\t trial\tcourt  has  properly\nconsidered  all\t aspects including the plea  of\t guilty\t and\ngiven  good reasons for awarding 4 years R.I. That means  in\nall, the appellant has to undergo 11 years of  imprisonment.\nThat by itself is quite Long enough in a man's life. But the\nHigh  Court took a narrow view of the whole matter with\t the\nenormity of the crime on the forefront. [753G-H]\n    2(ii)   The\t  broad\t expanse  of  discretion   left\t  by\nlegislation to sentencing courts should not be narrowed only\nto  the seriousness of the offence. No single  consideration\ncan definitively determine the proper sentence. In  arriving\nat  an\tappropriate sentence, the court must  consider,\t and\nsome times reject, many factors. The court must\t `recognise,\nlearn  to  control and exclude' many diverse data. It  is  a\nbalancing  act\tand  tortuous  process\tto  ensure  reasoned\nsentence. In consecutive sentences, in particular, the court\ncannot afford to be blind to imprisonment which the  accused\nis already undergoing. [753H ; 754A-B]\n    3. Generally, it is both proper and customery for courts\nto  give  credit to an accused for pleading  guilty  to\t the\ncharge. But no credit need be given if the plea of guilty in\nthe  circumstance  is  inevitable  or  the  accused  has  no\nalternative  but to plead guilty. The accused  being  caught\nred handed is one such instance. [753B]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 467
\nof 1988.\n<\/p>\n
    From the Judgment and Order dated 20th July, 1987 of the
\nGujarat\t High  Court  in Crl. Appeal No.  260\/87  with\tCrl.
\nAppeal No. 105\/87 and Crl. Appeal No. 444\/87.
\n    Soli J. Sorabji, Mukul Mudgal, E.K. Jose and P.H. Parekh
\nfor the\t Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 749
\n    G.A.  Shah, M.N. Shroff, B. Datta, A.K.  Srivastava,  P.
\nPramesh\t and Mrs. Sushma Suri for the Respondents.
\n    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n    JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. We grant Special leave and proceed
\nto dispose of the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t appeal arises from a Judgment of the Gujarat  High
\nCourt dated 20th July 1987in Criminal Appeal Nos.  260\/1987,
\n105\/1987  and 444\/1987. It raises a short but not very\teasy
\npoint  for  determination. The point relates  to  sentencing
\npractice as to concurrent or consecutive sentences.
\n    The\t essential  facts can be stated in summary  form  as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
    Appellant-Mohd.  Akhtar  Hussain  alias  Ibrahim   Ahmad
\nBhatti\tis a Pakistani national. On 15 April 1982, the\tgold
\n7(NN)  tolas of foreign mark of the value of Rs. 1.4  crores
\nwas  seized from his possession at Ahmedabad. Later  he\t was
\narrested. On 23 September, a case was filed in the Court  of
\nChief  Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad in CC No. 1674  of
\n1982.  He  was\tcharged\t under s. 85(  I)(ii)  of  the\tGold
\n(Control) Act, 1968. He pleaded guilty to the charge. On  11
\nJanuary, 1984 he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment
\nfor  7\tyears and fine of Rs. 10 lakhs. It  is\tthe  maximum
\npunishment  prescribed\tunder the Gold (Control)  Act.\tUpon
\nappeal,\t the Bombay High Court confirmed that  sentence\t but
\nreduced\t the fine to Rs.5 lakhs. The special leave  petition
\nfiled  by  the appellant was dismissed by this\tCourt.\tThat
\nconviction and sentence became final.\n<\/p>\n
    When  the  appellant was under judicial custody  in\t the
\naforesaid case, there was further investigation with  regard
\nto  his smuggling activities. It revealed widespread  racket
\nof  smuggling  gold  and silver in  collusion  with  several
\npersons.  On 6 January, 1983 he was again  prosecuted  along
\nwith  18 others under s. 335 of the Customs Act,  1962.\t The
\ncomplaint in this case was filed before the Additional Chief
\nMetropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. It was registered as  CC
\nNo.  129\/1986.\tIt  was alleged in the\tcomplaint  that\t the
\nappellant and others had imported gold worth Rs. 12.5 crores
\nand  smuggled  out  of India silver worth  Rs.\t11.5  crores
\nduring December 1981 to February 1982. In this case also the
\nappellant did not wait for the trial of the case. He pleaded
\nguilty to the charge. The other 18 accused, however, did not
\nThey denied the charge and the case against them is said  to
\nbe still pending for disposal.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 750
\n    On\tJanuary,  1987, the trial Magistrate  convicted\t the
\nappellant, in the following terms:\n<\/p>\n
    “Accused  No.  1  in this case is  proved  guilty  under
\nSection\t 235 of Customs Act and it is ordered  that  accused
\nNo.  1 is sentenced for 4 years (for four years R.I.  and  a
\nfine of Rupees two lakhs (Rupees two lakhs only) and if fine
\nnot paid, further sentence of R.I. for six months more. This
\nsentence  is  to be undergone on expiration of\tsentence  in
\nCrl. case No. 1674\/82. Accused is found guilty under section
\n120(B)\tof  Indian Penal Code, but no separate\tsentence  is
\nordered, for the same.”\n<\/p>\n
    The reasons given in support of the above conclusion are:
\n    “It\t is  not  proper to pass order only  by\t taking\t the
\ncircumstances\t and\tdifficulties   of    the    accused.
\nSimultaneously,\t midway\t should\t be  found  looking  to\t the
\ncircumstances  of the nation and personal  circumstances  of
\nthe  accused. It is not possible to order sentence  of\tboth
\nthe  cases  of the accused, to run  concurrently.  When\t the
\naccused in previous case, was ordered to undergo sentence of
\nseven  years  R.I.  then,  in this case\t it  does  not\tseem
\nreasonable to order sentence for similar period i.e.  detain
\nin jail for 12 to 14 years and fine and if fine not paid, to
\nundergo\t further  more\tsentence. The  accused\thad  pleaded
\nguilty\tand  requested for mercy. It is in the\tinterest  of
\njustice to show slight mercy in the order of sentence by the
\nCourt.”\n<\/p>\n
    Against this order of conviction and sentence there were
\nappeals\t  and  counter appeals before the  High\t Court.\t The
\nappellant  appealed against the sentence on the ground\tthat
\nthe  sentences should have been made concurrent. The  State,
\non the other hand, demanded the\t maximum sentence again. The
\nmaximum sentence prescribed under s. 135 of the\t Customs Act
\nis  also  7 years. The State contended that in view  of\t the
\nenormity  of the economic crime committed by the  appellant,
\nhe  should  be given the maximum and consecutive.  The\tHigh
\nCourt accepted the State appeal, enhanced the sentence\tfrom
\n4  years to 7 years and made it consecutive.   Consequently,
\nthe  High Court dismissed the appeal of the  appellant.\t The
\nresult is that he has to serve in all 14 years\timprisonment
\nwhich he has challenged in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
    Section   427  Cr.P.C. incorporates\t the  principles  of
\nsentencing an
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 751
\noffender   who\t is  already  undergoing   a   sentence\t  of
\nimprisonment. The relevant portion of the Section reads :\n<\/p>\n
    “427.(1)   When   a\t  person   already   undergoing\t   a
\nsentence  of  imprisonment  is\tsentenced  on  a  subsequent
\nconviction  to imprisonment or imprisonment for\t life,\tsuch
\nimprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at\t the
\nexpiration  of\tthe  imprisonment  to  which  he  has\tbeen
\npreviously  sentenced,\tunless the Court  directs  that\t the
\nsubsequent   sentence  shall  run  concurrently\t with\tsuch
\nprevious  sentence.\n<\/p>\n
    xxxxx\t\t xxxxx\t\t     xxxxx ”\n<\/p>\n
    The\t Section  relates  to  administration  of   criminal
\njustice\t  and\tprovides  procedure  for   sentencing.\t The
\nsentencing court is, therefore,required to consider and make
\nan  appropriate order as to how the sentence passed  in\t the
\nsubsequent  case is to run. Whether it should be  concurrent
\nor consecutive ?\n<\/p>\n
    The\t basic rule of thumb over the years has been the  so
\ncalled single transation rule for concurrent sentences. If a
\ngiven\ttransaction  constitutes  two  offences\t under\t two
\nenactments  generally,\tit  is\twrong  to  have\t consecutive
\nsentences.  It is proper and legitimate to  have  concurrent
\nsentences.   But  this\trule  has  no  application  if\t the
\ntransaction  relating  to offences is not the  same  or\t the
\nfacts constituting the two offences are quite different.
\n    In this appeal, the primary challenge to the sentence is
\nbased\ton  assumption\tthat  the  two\tcases  against\t the
\nappellant, under the Gold (Control) Act, and the Customs Act
\npertain\t to the same subject matter. It is alleged that\t the
\nappellant was prosecuted under the two enactments in respect
\nof seizure of 7,000 tolas of gold. On this basis,  reference
\nis  also made to Section 428 Cr. P.C.  claiming set  off  in
\nregard\tto the period of  imprisonment already undergone  by
\nthe appellant.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t  submission,\tin  our\t opinion,  appears   to\t  be
\nmisconceived.\tThe   material\t produced   by\t the   State
\nunmistakably  indicates that the two offences for which\t the
\nappellant  was prosecuted are quite distinct and  different.
\nThe case under the Customs Act may, to some extent,  overlap
\nthe case under the Gold\t (Control) Act, but it is  evidently
\non  different  transactions. The complaint  under  the\tGold
\n(Control)  Act\trelates\t to possession\tof  7,000  tolas  of
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 752
\nprimary\t gold  prohibited under s. 8 of the said  Act.\t The
\ncomplaint under the Customs Act is with regard to  smuggling
\nof Gold Worth Rs. 12.5 crores and export of silver worth Rs.\n<\/p>\n
11. 5 crores. On these facts, the Courts are not unjustified
\nin directing that the sentences could be consecutive and not
\nconcurrent.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t question,  however,  remains to  be  considered  is
\nwhether\t the   maximum\tsentence under the  Customs  Act  is
\nwarranted?  Whether,  in the circumstances, it is  wrong  in
\nprinciple to sentence the same offender the another  maximum
\nimprisonment?\n<\/p>\n
    It is argued that the High Court has failed to take into
\nconsideration  the  total  period  of  sentence\t which\t the
\nappellant  has to undergo. It is also argued that since\t the
\nconviction  was\t based on the plea of guilty  the  appellant
\nshould\thave  been  given  a credit  in\t the  sentence.\t The
\npersonal  problems  of appellant are  also  highlighted\t for
\nreduction in the sentence.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t High Court has refused to take\t into  consideration
\nthe merciful plea of the appellant and much less the plea of
\nguilty.\t  The  enormity\t of  the  crime\t committed  by\t the
\nappellant,  according to the High Court,  warranted  nothing
\nless  than the maximum sentence. The High Court had this  to
\nsay:\n<\/p>\n
    “The  individual  hardships\t of the\t appellant  and\t his
\nfamily\twould  be of no consequence at all. If\toffence\t was
\nsuch  that  the maximum sentence should have  been  awarded,
\nthen  the  learned Metropolitan Magistrate should  not\thave
\nmade  an illconceived attempt to find out a via\t media.\t We,
\ntherefore, feel that the appeal filed by the State  requires
\nto be allowed. The fact that the accused had pleaded  guilty
\nis of no consequence. It is not the case of  plea-bargaining
\nbecause the accused had pleaded guilty and yet he was  given
\nnumerous  opportunities to reconsider his decision.  If\t the
\naccused even thereafter had pleaded guilty, the fact that he
\nwas awarded a seven years’ Rigorous imprisonment sentence in
\nthe  previous  case  would  be no  ground  for\tthe  learned
\nMetropolitan  Magistrate  to  award less  than\tthe  maximum
\nsentence  if the facts of the case warranted such a  maximum
\nsentence. The enormity of the crime called for nothing\tless
\nthan the maximum sentence.”\n<\/p>\n
    We have carefully perused the entire material on record.
\nIt may\tbe recalled that the appellant was given the maximum
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 753
\nsentence  of  7\t years\tin  the\t previous  case\t under\tGold
\n(Control)  Act. The conviction thereunder was also based  on
\nthe  plea of guilty. The latter sentence under\tthe  Customs
\nAct  was also on the plea of guilty. Generally, it is\tboth
\nproper and customery for Courts to give credit to an accused
\nfor   pleading guilty to the charge. But no credit  need  be
\ngiven  if  the\tplea  of  guilty  in  the  circumstance\t  is
\ninevitable  or the accused has no alternative but  to  plead
\nguilty.\t The  accused being caught red handed  is  one\tsuch
\ninstance.  The\tfirst  case under  the\tGold  (Control)\t Act
\nagainst the appellant falls into the latter category.  7,000
\ntolas  of  Gold\t of foreign  mark of the value\tof  Rs.\t 1.4
\ncrores\twere  seized from the possession of  appellant.\t The
\nplea  of guilty in that case was inevitable. The Court\twas,
\ntherefore,  justified in awarding the maximum sentence.\t But
\nthe second case under the Customs Act was not of that  type.
\nHere the prosecution has to prove many things. There are  18
\nother  accused\tfacing\tthe  trial in  the  same  case.\t The
\nappellant, however, pleaded guilty perhaps on legal  advise.
\nHe must have been told that some credit for such plea  would
\nbe given by the court and if the credit is not given and the
\nmaximum sentence is awarded the appellant is surely entitled
\nto complain for giving the maximum sentence.
\n    It is no doubt that the enormity of the crime  committed
\nby  the accused is relevant for measuring the sentence.\t But
\nthe  maximum sentence awarded in one case against  the\tsame
\naccused is not irrelevant for consideration while giving the
\nconsecutive  sentence  in  the second case  although  it  is
\ngrave.\tThe  Court  has\t to consider  the  totality  of\t the
\nsentences which the accused has to undergo if the  sentences
\nare  to\t be  consecutive. The totality\tprinciple  has\tbeen
\naccepted as correct principle for guidance. In R. v.  Edward
\nCharles\t French,  [1982] Cr. App. R. (S) p. 1 (at  6),\tLord
\nLane, C.J., observed :\n<\/p>\n
    “We\t would\temphasize  that\t in  the  end,\twhether\t the
\nsentences are made consecutive or concurrent the  sentencing
\njudge  should  try  to\tensure\tthat  the  totality  of\t the
\nsentences  is correct in the light of all the  circumstances
\nof the case.”\n<\/p>\n
    The\t  trial\t Magistrate  in\t this  case   has   properly
\nconsidered  all\t aspects including the plea  of\t guilty\t and
\ngiven  good reasons for awarding 4 years R.I. That means  in
\nall, the appellant has to undergo  11 years of imprisonment.
\nThat by itself is quite long enough in a man’s life. But the
\nHigh  Court took a narrow view of the whole matter with\t the
\nenormity of the crime on the forefront. The broad expanse of
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 754
\ndiscretion  left by legislation to sentencing Courts  should
\nnot  be narrowed only to the seriousness of the offence.  No
\nsingle\tconsideration can definitively determine the  proper
\nsentence. In arriving at an appropriate sentence, the  court
\nmust consider, and some times reject,many factors. The court
\nmust. `recognise, learn to control and exlcude’ many diverse
\ndata.  It is a balancing act and tortuous process to  ensure
\nreasoned sentence. In consecutive sentences, in\t particular,
\nthe  Court cannot afford to be blind to\t imprisonment  which
\nthe accused is already undergoing.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tthe  result,  we allow the  appeal,  set  aside\t the
\njudgment  of  the High Court and restore that of  the  trial
\ncourt.\n<\/p>\n
M.L.A.\t\t\t\t\t      Appeal allowed.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 755\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Mohd. Akhtar Hussain Alias … vs Assistant Collector Of Customs … on 31 August, 1988 Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 2143, 1988 SCR Supl. (2) 747 Author: K Shetty Bench: Shetty, K.J. (J) PETITIONER: MOHD. AKHTAR HUSSAIN ALIAS IBRAHIM AHMED BHATTI Vs. RESPONDENT: ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTION)AHMEDABAD & ORS. DATE OF […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-17769","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMohd. Akhtar Hussain Alias ... vs Assistant Collector Of Customs ... on 31 August, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-akhtar-hussain-alias-vs-assistant-collector-of-customs-on-31-august-1988\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mohd. Akhtar Hussain Alias ... vs Assistant Collector Of Customs ... on 31 August, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-akhtar-hussain-alias-vs-assistant-collector-of-customs-on-31-august-1988\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1988-08-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-27T09:46:17+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-akhtar-hussain-alias-vs-assistant-collector-of-customs-on-31-august-1988#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-akhtar-hussain-alias-vs-assistant-collector-of-customs-on-31-august-1988\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mohd. Akhtar Hussain Alias … vs Assistant Collector Of Customs … on 31 August, 1988\",\"datePublished\":\"1988-08-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-27T09:46:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-akhtar-hussain-alias-vs-assistant-collector-of-customs-on-31-august-1988\"},\"wordCount\":2133,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-akhtar-hussain-alias-vs-assistant-collector-of-customs-on-31-august-1988#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-akhtar-hussain-alias-vs-assistant-collector-of-customs-on-31-august-1988\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-akhtar-hussain-alias-vs-assistant-collector-of-customs-on-31-august-1988\",\"name\":\"Mohd. Akhtar Hussain Alias ... vs Assistant Collector Of Customs ... on 31 August, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1988-08-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-27T09:46:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-akhtar-hussain-alias-vs-assistant-collector-of-customs-on-31-august-1988#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-akhtar-hussain-alias-vs-assistant-collector-of-customs-on-31-august-1988\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-akhtar-hussain-alias-vs-assistant-collector-of-customs-on-31-august-1988#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mohd. Akhtar Hussain Alias … vs Assistant Collector Of Customs … on 31 August, 1988\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mohd. Akhtar Hussain Alias ... vs Assistant Collector Of Customs ... on 31 August, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-akhtar-hussain-alias-vs-assistant-collector-of-customs-on-31-august-1988","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mohd. Akhtar Hussain Alias ... vs Assistant Collector Of Customs ... on 31 August, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-akhtar-hussain-alias-vs-assistant-collector-of-customs-on-31-august-1988","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1988-08-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-27T09:46:17+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-akhtar-hussain-alias-vs-assistant-collector-of-customs-on-31-august-1988#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-akhtar-hussain-alias-vs-assistant-collector-of-customs-on-31-august-1988"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mohd. Akhtar Hussain Alias … vs Assistant Collector Of Customs … on 31 August, 1988","datePublished":"1988-08-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-27T09:46:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-akhtar-hussain-alias-vs-assistant-collector-of-customs-on-31-august-1988"},"wordCount":2133,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-akhtar-hussain-alias-vs-assistant-collector-of-customs-on-31-august-1988#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-akhtar-hussain-alias-vs-assistant-collector-of-customs-on-31-august-1988","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-akhtar-hussain-alias-vs-assistant-collector-of-customs-on-31-august-1988","name":"Mohd. Akhtar Hussain Alias ... vs Assistant Collector Of Customs ... on 31 August, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1988-08-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-27T09:46:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-akhtar-hussain-alias-vs-assistant-collector-of-customs-on-31-august-1988#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-akhtar-hussain-alias-vs-assistant-collector-of-customs-on-31-august-1988"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-akhtar-hussain-alias-vs-assistant-collector-of-customs-on-31-august-1988#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mohd. Akhtar Hussain Alias … vs Assistant Collector Of Customs … on 31 August, 1988"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17769","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=17769"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17769\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17769"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=17769"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=17769"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}