9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Prosecution failed to establish seizure of gold articles, credibility of witnesses, possession of gold by the accused, requirement of respectable witnesses, presumption of possession, marking of sanction for prosecution. Analysis: 1. The respondents were prosecuted for offences under the Gold (Control) Act and Gold Customs Act based on information provided by one of the respondents. Gold pellets of foreign origin were recovered from the house where the accused resided, leading to the filing of a charge sheet. The prosecution presented witnesses and evidence to support their case. 2. Witnesses testified about the information provided by one of the respondents, the seizure of gold pellets, and the involvement of customs officials. However, some witnesses turned hostile during the trial, affecting the prosecution's case. The trial court acquitted all the respondents due to lack of evidence supporting the charges. 3. The prosecution appealed the acquittal, arguing that the trial court failed to establish the seizure of the articles. The credibility of independent witnesses who did not support the prosecution's case was questioned. The prosecution contended that the witnesses were from the same village and might have withheld support due to local ties. 4. The appellant further argued that the possession of gold by the accused was not proven beyond doubt. The location from where the gold pellets were seized raised questions about ownership and possession. Lack of evidence regarding the accused's ownership or control over the seized property weakened the prosecution's case. 5. The prosecution emphasized the significance of marking the sanction obtained to prosecute the respondents under the Gold Customs Act. The trial court noted the absence of proper marking and witness verification of the sanction, highlighting a procedural lapse in the prosecution's case. 6. The appellate court reviewed the evidence and upheld the trial court's decision, stating that there was no justification for interference. The lack of substantial proof regarding the seizure, possession, and procedural requirements for prosecution led to the dismissal of the appeal. In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed, and the respondents' bail bonds were canceled. The judgment highlighted the importance of meeting legal standards in establishing possession, presenting credible witnesses, and adhering to procedural requirements for prosecution under the relevant acts.
|
