9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Appeal against conviction under Rule 132(3) of Defence of India Rules, 1962. 2. Possession of small coins beyond personal or business requirements. 3. Relevance of evidence presented during trial. 4. Interpretation of "small coins" under Rule 132 of Defence of India Rules. 5. Discrepancies in the amount of seized coins. 6. Burden of proof on prosecution regarding possession of small coins. 7. Justification of acquittal by the lower appellate court. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed challenging the conviction of the respondent under Rule 132(3) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, by the Special Magistrate. The prosecution alleged that the respondent possessed small coins beyond his personal or business requirements, leading to the charge against him. 2. The respondent, an excise vendor, was found in possession of a significant quantity of small coins during a search conducted at his premises. The prosecution argued that the coins exceeded his personal or business needs. The respondent claimed that a portion of the coins belonged to his family members and were collected for a Puja Committee, of which he was the Treasurer. 3. The trial court admitted irrelevant evidence during the proceedings, leading to a bulk of oral and documentary evidence being considered unnecessary for the case. The trial Magistrate convicted the respondent based on the large quantity of coins found at his residence, his role as the head of the family, and the lack of evidence supporting the coins' ownership by other family members. 4. The interpretation of "small coins" under Rule 132 was crucial in determining the respondent's guilt. The rule prohibited possession of small coins in excess of personal or business requirements. The court clarified that "small coins" did not include one-rupee coins, and the prosecution failed to provide clear evidence regarding the denomination of the seized coins. 5. Discrepancies in the amount of seized coins and the lack of denomination-wise specification in the seizure list raised doubts about the prosecution's case. The lower appellate court noted inconsistencies in the total amount of coins seized and the charges brought against the respondent, leading to questions about the prosecution's evidence. 6. The burden of proof rested on the prosecution to establish the extent of the respondent's possession of small coins beyond his needs. The respondent's admission regarding a portion of the coins belonging to him did not conclusively prove guilt, especially considering the absence of clear evidence on the denomination of the seized coins. 7. The lower appellate court acquitted the respondent based on the prosecution's failure to provide sufficient evidence regarding the possession of small coins. The court upheld the acquittal, emphasizing the lack of clarity in the prosecution's case and the absence of concrete proof against the respondent.
|
