9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Appeal against acquittal filed by Assistant Collector, Central Excise. 2. Accused tried for offences under Customs Act and Gold Control Act. 3. Possession of contraband gold. 4. Exclusivity of possession by the accused. 5. Evidence regarding the origin of seized gold items. 6. Defective seizure report. Analysis: 1. The judgment pertains to an appeal against acquittal filed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, involving the trial of the accused for offences under the Customs Act and the Gold Control Act. The accused, a proprietor of a silverware shop, was alleged to be clandestinely dealing in primary gold, foreign gold, and gold ornaments without the required license. A raid conducted at the accused's shop and residence led to the recovery of various gold items, both primary and of foreign origin, resulting in a significant seizure. 2. The prosecution's case primarily revolved around the possession of 15 gold slabs of foreign origin by the accused, leading to charges under Section 135(1) of the Customs Act. The prosecution presented witnesses, including the search conductor and mediators, to establish the recovery of the gold items. However, the defense argued that the accused did not have exclusive possession of the premises where the contraband was found, raising doubts about his culpability. 3. The lower court deliberated on the exclusivity of the accused's possession and the evidentiary value of reports regarding the origin of the seized gold items. It was contended that the reports were inconclusive and that certain items were not subjected to necessary tests. The lower court found discrepancies in the seizure report for some items, further complicating the case. 4. The learned standing counsel for the Central Government challenged the lower court's conclusions, asserting that the accused should not be acquitted solely based on the lack of exclusive possession. However, the judge, in dismissing the appeal against acquittal, emphasized that without strong grounds, the court could not interfere. The prosecution's failure to establish the exclusive possession of the accused was deemed sufficient to uphold the acquittal, highlighting the importance of meeting the burden of proof in such cases. 5. In conclusion, the judgment underscores the significance of establishing exclusive possession and presenting reliable evidence in cases involving the possession of contraband items. The decision to dismiss the appeal against acquittal serves as a reminder of the stringent evidentiary requirements in such matters and the need for thorough investigation and presentation of evidence to secure convictions in similar cases.
|
