1985 (4) TMI 77 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Sanction requirement for prosecution under the Customs Act.
2. Legality of searches conducted by customs officers.
3. Admissibility of evidence and witness credibility.
4. Joint complaint against multiple accused based on different dates of offense.

Issue 1: The judgment discussed the requirement of sanction under Section 137(1) of the Customs Act for prosecution. The Appellant failed to produce the original order of sanction before the Magistrate, leading to a legal bar against taking cognizance of the offenses. The Appellant's argument for remand was rejected due to negligence in not filing the original sanction order earlier. The Court held that the absence of the original sanction was a serious lacuna, justifying the Magistrate's dismissal of the complaint and acquittal of the accused.

Issue 2: The legality of searches conducted by customs officers was examined. The judgment highlighted the provisions of Section 105(1) of the Customs Act, which empower authorized officers to conduct searches. The Court found that the searches conducted at the houses of the accused were not properly authorized. While one officer had the necessary authority, the other did not, rendering the searches illegal. The Court endorsed the Magistrate's decision to acquit the accused based on the illegal searches.

Issue 3: The judgment analyzed the admissibility of evidence and witness credibility. The Court discussed the evidence of panch witnesses and their testimonies regarding the searches and seizures. Witness credibility was questioned based on their connections with the excise department, leading to the rejection of their evidence. The Court upheld the Magistrate's findings on the legality of searches and the credibility of witnesses.

Issue 4: The judgment addressed the argument against a joint complaint involving multiple accused based on different dates of offense. The Court noted the lack of nexus between the offenses committed on different dates by different individuals. Consequently, the Court agreed with the Magistrate's decision to discard the joint complaint. The judgment ultimately confirmed the order of acquittal in favor of the accused under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Magistrate's decision to acquit the accused due to the absence of the original sanction, illegal searches, lack of witness credibility, and the inadmissibility of a joint complaint involving multiple accused based on different dates of offense.