1985 (2) TMI 38 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the sanction for prosecution.
2. Identification and connection of the seized wrist watches with the accused.
3. Sufficiency and reliability of evidence against the accused.
4. Procedural lapses and delays in the trial.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Sanction for Prosecution:
The court scrutinized the sanction order (Ex. PB) issued by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, which was essential for prosecuting the respondent under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The court found that the sanction betrayed "total non-application of mind" by the sanctioning authority. The sanction erroneously referred to Section 3(2) of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955, which was irrelevant to the case. The court concluded that the sanctioning authority did not consider all the relevant facts, as the order was silent about the precise nature of the offense and the facts constituting the contravention of Section 135. The court emphasized that a valid sanction must be based on a thorough consideration of the material facts, and the absence of such consideration rendered the sanction invalid.

2. Identification and Connection of the Seized Wrist Watches:
The court noted significant discrepancies in the number of wrist watches produced in court compared to those allegedly seized. Initially, the prosecution claimed 3,218 wrist watches were seized, but subsequent counts in court revealed different numbers (3,358 and 3,331). The court observed that the prosecution failed to establish that the wrist watches produced in court were the same as those seized from the respondent's house. The testimony of witnesses and the handling of the case property raised doubts about the identity of the wrist watches. The court highlighted that the prosecution did not provide first-hand evidence to link the watches produced in court with those seized.

3. Sufficiency and Reliability of Evidence Against the Accused:
The court found that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient to prove the respondent's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The respondent's statements to Customs officers under Section 108 of the Customs Act did not establish that he had acquired possession of the incriminating goods. The respondent had stated that he had rented the room to his uncle, who kept smuggled watches there, and he denied any personal involvement. The court noted that the prosecution's case was based primarily on these statements, which were not corroborated by other evidence. Additionally, the court pointed out that the respondent's father, not the respondent, was present during the raid and cooperated with the Customs officials.

4. Procedural Lapses and Delays in the Trial:
The court criticized the prolonged duration of the trial, which had lasted over 13 years. It noted procedural lapses, such as the failure to exhibit the wrist watches initially and the subsequent confusion regarding their identification. The court observed that the prosecution's application to recall a witness for formally tendering the seized goods in evidence was indicative of the procedural shortcomings. The court also mentioned that the respondent's application for acquittal under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was dismissed by the trial court, but the Additional Sessions Judge later discharged the respondent, allowing the possibility of a fresh complaint with proper sanction.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the revision petition, finding no merit in the prosecution's case. The invalid sanction, discrepancies in the identification of the seized goods, insufficient evidence, and procedural lapses led the court to conclude that remanding the case would cause undue harassment and expense to the respondent. The court emphasized the importance of a valid sanction and reliable evidence in prosecuting offenses under the Customs Act.