2020 (1) TMI 600 - HC - Customs

Jurisdiction - powers of the Appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal - case of forgery - offence u/s 138 of NI Act - acquittal of accused of offence under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) 1947 - HELD THAT - According to P.W.-3, the export, however, was made after the expiry of period fixed by the competent authority. The period, what P.W-3 is referring to, is the period prior to granting of third extension. In this case, the appropriate authority had commenced investigation and filed a complaint in view of non compliance with export obligations by accused. Accused, however, had applied for an extension, which extension was granted after the complaint was filed and investigation was commenced. P.W-3 also has stated that he had discussed the matter in the office of the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi, and during the course of discussion, he came to know that period of completing export obligations was extended upto 17-8-1992 - Keeping this in mind, the Trial Court has acquitted accused. Ms Anandpara is correct in submitting that there can be no perversity in the order passed by the Trial Court. There is an acquittal and therefore, there is double presumption in favour of accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to the accused under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless they are proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, accused having secured their acquittal, the presumption of their innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. For acquitting accused, the Trial Court rightly observed that the prosecution had failed to prove its case. The opinion of the Trial Court cannot be held to be illegal or improper or contrary to law. The order of acquittal need not be interfered with - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Impugned order of acquittal under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) 1947.
2. Allegation of non-fulfillment of export obligations and forged export orders.
3. Evidence presented by the prosecution regarding export obligations.
4. Legal principles governing appellate court's powers in appeals against acquittals.

Analysis:
1. The case involved an appeal by the Union of India against an order of acquittal under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) 1947. The appellant alleged that the accused had not fulfilled their export obligations as per the license issued, leading to the charge of contravening conditions of the license and committing an offense under the said Act.

2. The appellant contended that the accused had obtained the license by submitting forged and fabricated export orders. However, the charge framed did not include forgery allegations, focusing solely on the non-fulfillment of export obligations. The accused denied the charges and claimed to have fulfilled the obligations within the extended period granted by the competent authority.

3. The prosecution presented evidence through witnesses to support the charge of non-fulfillment of export obligations. The witnesses confirmed that the export obligations were not met within the initial time frame but acknowledged that the accused complied before the extended deadline. The investigating officer verified the export statements and confirmed the fulfillment of obligations within the extended period.

4. In analyzing the trial court's acquittal, the appellate court referred to legal principles governing appeals against acquittals. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Chandrappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, the court highlighted the double presumption in favor of the accused post-acquittal. The appellate court emphasized that unless the trial court's decision is illegal or improper, an order of acquittal should not be interfered with.

5. Ultimately, the appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal, noting that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found no grounds to deem the trial court's opinion as illegal or contrary to law, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.