2014 (4) TMI 1022 - HC - Customs

Validity of Order of acquittal Sufficient Evidence - Conscious possession of the contraband article Panch Witness - Charge of commission of offences u/s 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 and u/s 85(1)(ii)(a) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 - Held that - It is difficult to accept that the Trial Court had not taken into consideration the relevant facts of the evidence adduced by the prosecution or has not passed the judgment upon the evidence surfaced at the trial - Such a conclusion is inevitable as the matter stated/recorded into few pages clearly reveal that the Trial Court has meticulously considered the evidence of PW 1, PW 3 and PW 4 in the same - On the basis of such a material surfaced during the prosecution evidence, Trial Court had come to the conclusion of their being variance regarding the place at which the seizure panchnama was drawn i.e. whether drawn at the spot of the seizure rear of Pritam Hotel or as claimed by PW 1 in the office of the Customs - It is difficult to find any fault with the observations made by the Trial Court that out of the said witnesses PW 1 being involved in a raid, was an interested witness, while PW 3 was the independent witness. For coming to the conclusion about guilt of the respondent, it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that the respondent was in conscious possession of the contraband article i.e. the gold when he was prohibited by raiding party at the spot - There being paucity of evidence of independent witnesses regarding the said aspect, the Trial Court had declined to draw such inference on the basis of the evidence of the members of the raiding party i.e. PW 1 and PW 4 - The said conclusion drawn by the Trial Court being based upon the relevant facts of the evidence of the members of the raiding party and particularly that of PW 1 and of the panch witnesses and absence of signatures of panch witnesses on the box, can neither be said to be perverse nor can be de hors the evidence of the witnesses - The reasons given also cannot be said to be erroneous or de hors material surfaced at the trial - Thus, finding reached by the Trial Court of the defence version being true also cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse in light of the reasons given for the same - The order of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court cannot be said to be improper upon the possible view of the evidence surfaced at the trial - No case is made out for interfering with the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court - Resultantly, appeal stands dismissed Decided against Appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging acquittal judgment under Customs Act and Gold (Control) Act based on seizure of gold bars from accused.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, Assistant Collector of Customs, challenged the acquittal order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, acquitting the respondent from charges under the Customs Act and Gold (Control) Act.
2. The prosecution's case was based on a raid conducted after receiving confidential information, where the accused was found with foreign marked gold bars in a sweetmeat box near a hotel.
3. The accused claimed that he was merely helping a boy who had dropped the box, denying knowledge of the gold bars. He disputed the voluntariness of his statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act.
4. The Trial Court acquitted the accused, finding discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence and lack of independent witness corroboration.
5. The Special Public Prosecutor contended that the Trial Court erred in discounting the evidence of seizure and accused's statements, urging for conviction based on the prosecution's case.
6. The Trial Court's judgment was found to be meticulous in considering the evidence of witnesses and discrepancies in the raid proceedings, leading to the conclusion of acquittal.
7. The High Court upheld the Trial Court's decision, noting that the prosecution failed to establish conscious possession of the contraband by the accused, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and affirming the acquittal order.