2018 (3) TMI 281 - HC - Customs

Acquittal of offences - offences punishable under Section 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 and 5 of the Imports Exports (Control) Act, 1947 read with Sections 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code - Held that - The evidence of the P.W.3 has proved the fact that goods have been removed on 7th February, 1985 and P.W.4 in evidence asserted that these goods were deposited in the Customs Godown on 5th March, 1985. He had also produced the Register on Record. The question, that arises is, with whom the subject goods were lying between 7th February, 1985 to 5th March, 1988. The prosecution has neither answered this issue, nor clarified it by placing on record, evidence of any kind. At the same time, the evidence of P.W.1 who had inspected the goods would be relevant - Nobody knows who was in the custody of the subject goods from 7th February, 1985 till 5th March, 1985. There is no reason to hold that the trial Court has committed any error in appreciating the evidence and recording the order of acquittal against accused nos. 1 and 3 - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against acquittal under Customs Act, 1962 and Indian Penal Code.
2. Separation of case against original accused no.2.
3. Alleged conspiracy to import contraband goods.
4. Acquittal of accused nos.1 and 3 by the trial court.
5. Evidence and records supporting the acquittal decision.

Analysis:
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs appealed against the acquittal of accused nos.1 and 3 under Sections 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, and other relevant sections. The Additional Collector of Customs had acquitted the accused, leading to the appeal.

2. The case of the original accused no.2 was separated, and the appeal stood abated against respondent no.2 based on a specific order dated 9th October, 2015. This separation impacted the proceedings and legal standing of the case.

3. The complainant alleged that accused no.1 imported goods of foreign origin under the Transfer of Residence facility at the behest of accused no.2. Contraband goods were discovered by Customs officers, leading to the seizure of unclaimed packages. The goods were found to be smuggled and seized under the Customs Act, 1962.

4. Accused no.1 was directed to present relevant documents related to the consignment goods in his name. The prosecution alleged a conspiracy involving all accused to import seized goods in violation of import regulations. Accused no.3 was implicated in receiving the goods after customs clearance.

5. The trial court acquitted accused nos.1 and 3 of all charges after evaluating oral and documentary evidence. The appeal challenged this acquittal, but the High Court found no errors in the trial court's appreciation of evidence. The court noted discrepancies in the evidence regarding the custody of goods, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and upholding the acquittal.

This comprehensive analysis covers the issues raised in the legal judgment, detailing the events, allegations, legal provisions, and the court's decision regarding the appeal against the acquittal of accused nos.1 and 3.