1986 (1) TMI 111 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Conviction based on handwriting expert evidence.
2. Failure to produce material witnesses.
3. Reliability of witnesses and their testimonies.

Analysis:
1. The judgment involves criminal revisions connected by similar offenses under sections 468 and 471 I.P.C. and section 9 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The petitioner was convicted based on evidence from a handwriting expert, which the defense argued against, citing previous court decisions. The lower courts found the expert's opinion credible, leading to the conviction. The defense challenged this reliance, emphasizing the need for substantial corroboration alongside such expert evidence.

2. The defense contended that crucial witnesses, including individuals to whom tobacco was allegedly sold, were not produced in court. This failure to present material witnesses raised doubts about connecting the petitioner to the alleged offenses. The defense further argued that the excise authorities' ability to recall applicants from decades prior was questionable, casting doubt on the prosecution's case.

3. The reliability of key witnesses, such as P.W.3 and P.W.2, was scrutinized. P.W.3's inconsistencies and contradictions in his statements, coupled with his failure to verify crucial details, undermined his credibility. His conduct as a public servant was also questioned, impacting the trustworthiness of his testimony. Similarly, P.W.2's suspicions based on name similarities lacked substantial evidence to connect the accused with the alleged offenses. The court emphasized the need for reliable and convincing evidence to support convictions, ultimately quashing the conviction and ordering the refund of any deposited fines to the petitioner.