1985 (3) TMI 70 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the seizure under Section 135(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Credibility of prosecution witnesses and evidence.
3. Delay in seizure and lodging of the complaint.
4. Burden of proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act.
5. Reasonableness of the trial court's judgment of acquittal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legitimacy of the Seizure under Section 135(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962:
The appellant, Assistant Collector of Customs and Central Excise, lodged a complaint alleging that on January 16, 1973, a boat loaded with 150 packets of catechu was seized by the B.S.F. near the Bangladesh border. The boatmen fled, and the catechu was seized on January 18, 1973. The respondent claimed the boat and catechu, which were confiscated after departmental adjudication. A fine was imposed under Section 114, and the boat was sold in public auction.

2. Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses and Evidence:
The prosecution examined two witnesses, while the defense examined three. The trial court acquitted the accused-respondent, finding the defense witnesses more credible. The prosecution's key witness, P.W. 1, claimed the boat was near the Bangladesh border, but the trial court found inconsistencies in his testimony, particularly regarding the location of Pillar No. 1042 and the river's flow, which undermined his credibility.

3. Delay in Seizure and Lodging of the Complaint:
The defense argued that there was a significant delay in seizing the catechu and lodging the complaint. The catechu was seized on January 18, 1973, despite being detained on January 16, 1973. The trial court found this delay suspicious and indicative of possible manipulation by the B.S.F. Inspector, P.W. 1. The defense also noted that material witnesses, such as the majhis of the boat, were not examined, further weakening the prosecution's case.

4. Burden of Proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act:
The court noted that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove that the goods were smuggled. Catechu was not included in the list of goods under Section 123, and no notification was produced to classify it as a prohibited good. Therefore, the burden of proof remained with the prosecution, which failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the smuggling allegation.

5. Reasonableness of the Trial Court's Judgment of Acquittal:
The trial court found the defense version more credible, supported by the challan and money receipt showing the legitimate origin and transit of the catechu. The court also found it unlikely that a smuggler would leave such documents with the goods. The accused-respondent promptly claimed the catechu and boat, further supporting his innocence. The trial court's judgment was based on reasonable grounds, and the High Court upheld the acquittal, citing precedents that if two views are possible, the High Court should not interfere with the trial court's decision.

Conclusion:
The High Court found no merit in the appeal and upheld the trial court's judgment of acquittal. The prosecution failed to prove the smuggling allegations beyond a reasonable doubt, and the defense provided a credible explanation supported by evidence. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the trial court's decision.