2010 (4) TMI 695 - HC - Customs

Prosecution smuggling of Gold - certificate issued by the MINT, opinion that the certificate does not bear any seal of the office from which it is supposed to be originated nor it contain any information of the office where the certificate was issued - It also does not bear any details of examination conducted in respect of the gold articles sent - statement under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., the accused has stated that they were threatened and beaten - statement alleged to have been made not voluntary and hence, the same cannot be relied on to convict the appellants - prosecution failed to bring the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt Appeal dismissed

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against acquittal under Sec. 135(1)(b)(1) of Customs Act, 1962 and Sec. 85(1)(A) of Gold Control Act, 1968.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the acquittal of the respondents for offences under Customs Act and Gold Control Act. The prosecution's case involved the discovery of contraband gold in a hotel room, leading to the arrest of the accused.

2. The prosecution presented witnesses and evidence, including the recovery of gold and currency from the hotel room. The defence did not call any witnesses but submitted a lodging register as evidence.

3. The Superintendent in Customs testified regarding the search operation at the hotel room and the recovery of gold and currency. The gold was certified to be of foreign origin and of high purity.

4. Another Superintendent confirmed the seizure of gold and currency, recorded statements of the accused under Sec. 108 of Customs Act, and sent gold samples for certification.

5. An Intelligence Officer translated documents for the accused, while a witness turned hostile during the trial.

6. The accused's statements were recorded, with one accusing coercion by customs officials during the seizure.

7. The defence argued that the statements were coerced and the recovery lacked independent witnesses, weakening the prosecution's case.

8. The court examined the admissibility of the statements under Sec. 108 of Customs Act and the relevance of the MINT officer's report.

9. The judgment cited legal precedents related to customs and criminal law to support the arguments presented by both sides.

10. The court analyzed the evidence, including the MINT certificate and the accused's statements, to determine the reliability of the prosecution's case.

11. The court found discrepancies in the MINT certificate's authenticity and raised doubts about the voluntariness of the accused's statements, leading to a lack of evidence connecting the accused to the seized property.

12. Ultimately, the court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, upholding the trial court's decision to acquit the respondents.

13. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the trial court's judgment of acquittal.