2018 (2) TMI 1078 - HC - Customs

Principles of natural justice - It is urged that the trial court did not appreciate the evidence in correct perspective. Summons to appear before the Investigating Agency were issued by speed post and were duly served upon the respondent - Held that - The trial court committed no error to observe that before initiating criminal proceedings against the respondent, the prosecution/Investigating Agency was expected to ensure that the summons were duly served upon the respondent and he avoided to appear before it deliberately or intentionally - The impugned judgment is based upon fair and proper appreciation of evidence and this Court finds no illegality or irregularity to grant leave to file appeal against acquittal - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Petition for leave to appeal against judgment of acquittal under Section 378(iv) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The petitioner contended that the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence correctly. Summons sent to the respondent via speed post were ignored by the trial court, despite the statutory presumption of service under Section 27 of the General Clause Act and Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. The respondent, allegedly involved in a serious case under Section 135 of the Customs Act, deliberately avoided appearing before the Investigating Agency.

2. The record indicated that multiple summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act were sent to the respondent on different dates, but not served personally. The prosecution relied on tracking reports, failing to ascertain the actual delivery details of the summons. The respondent denied receiving the summons, stating he was hospitalized during that period. The Investigating Agency did not make genuine efforts to serve the summons personally, instead opting for speedy dispatch. The trial court correctly noted that before initiating criminal proceedings, ensuring proper service of summons was essential, which the prosecution failed to establish.

3. It was revealed during arguments that the respondent eventually appeared, was arrested, and detained under COFEPOSA. The judgment of acquittal was deemed fair and based on a proper appreciation of evidence, with no identified irregularities. Consequently, the leave petition was dismissed as unmerited, affirming the acquittal judgment.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal, emphasizing the importance of establishing proper service of summons before initiating criminal proceedings and finding no grounds for challenging the fair and lawful acquittal decision.