2009 (10) TMI 773 - HC - Customs

Order of conviction and sentence - order of acquittal - Held that - The trial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondents of Criminal Appeal No. 611 of 1987 of the charges levelled against them and convicting the appellant-original accused No. 3 of Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 1992. Thus the findings recorded by the trial court are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it. Thus both the Appeals dismissed. The judgment and order dated 12-6-1986 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Valsad, in Criminal Case No. 35 of 1984 are hereby confirmed. The order of acquittal of respondents-original accused Nos. 1, 2 & 4 of Criminal Appeal No. 611 of 1987 of the offences charged against them is hereby confirmed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the original accused No. 3-appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 1992 is also confirmed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against acquittal of original accused Nos. 1, 2 & 4
2. Appeal against conviction of original accused No. 3 for Customs Act violation

Analysis:
1. The Union of India filed Criminal Appeal No. 611 of 1987 challenging the acquittal of original accused Nos. 1, 2 & 4 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 35 of 1984. The prosecution's case was based on finding smuggled watches in a vehicle linked to the accused. The trial court acquitted the accused due to serious lacunae in evidence and failure to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court upheld the trial court's decision, emphasizing that the prosecution failed to establish the charges against the original accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The judgment of acquittal was confirmed for accused Nos. 1, 2 & 4.

2. Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 1992 was filed by original accused No. 3 challenging his conviction under Section 135 of the Customs Act. The appellant contended that the trial court wrongly held him guilty, citing issues with the vehicle registration numbers and lack of supporting evidence. The High Court noted that the trial court's findings were just and proper, with no manifest illegality or perversity. The court found the prosecution successfully proved the case against original accused No. 3, leading to the confirmation of his conviction and sentence. The appellant was directed to surrender before the trial court within six weeks, failing which a Non-Bailable Warrant would be issued for his arrest. Both appeals were dismissed, confirming the trial court's judgment and orders.

In essence, the High Court upheld the trial court's decisions, emphasizing the importance of proving cases beyond reasonable doubt and the limited scope of appellate interference with trial court findings.