2007 (1) TMI 555 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order of acquittal under Sections 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 85 of the Gold Control Act, 1968.

Detailed Analysis:
1. Facts Leading to the Appeal:
The appeal was filed against the order of acquittal dated 31-3-1992 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, challenging the conviction and sentence under Sections 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 85 of the Gold Control Act, 1968. The accused was found with gold biscuits and currency notes, leading to the filing of the complaint by the Assistant Collector of Customs.

2. Grounds of Appeal:
The appellant contended that the appellate court set aside the conviction order based on the lack of proof of the required sanction for prosecution under Section 137 of the Customs Act and Section 97 of the Gold Control Act. The defense argued that the prosecution failed to prove the sanction, which was a serious infirmity leading to the order of acquittal.

3. Prosecution's Argument:
The respondent's counsel argued that the acquittal should not be reversed unless it results in a miscarriage of justice. They highlighted that the sanction document was not exhibited during the trial, making it unreliable for criminal liability. Additionally, the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused beyond doubt.

4. Court's Analysis:
The Court observed that the prosecution did not adequately prove the sanction required for prosecution. The Assistant Collector of Customs, who sanctioned the complaint, was not examined, and the document was not exhibited during the trial. The Superintendent's testimony did not mention the sanction, indicating a lack of proper proof. The Court emphasized that the prosecution failed to establish the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

5. Decision:
Considering the lack of proof of sanction and insufficient evidence against the accused, the Court upheld the order of acquittal. It stated that the appeal against an acquittal should only be sustained if it results in a miscarriage of justice, which was not demonstrated in this case. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the order of acquittal was upheld.

In conclusion, the Court's decision was based on the lack of proof of sanction and insufficient evidence to establish the case against the accused, leading to the dismissal of the appeal against the order of acquittal under Sections 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 85 of the Gold Control Act, 1968.