2009 (11) TMI 629 - HC - Customs

Smuggled goods - evidence of complainant is not supported by any independent witnesses - accused were not there at the place of offence when the goods were seized Held that - there are serious lacunae in the oral as well as documentary evidence of prosecution, appellant could not bring home the charge against the respondents accused, from the evidence itself it is established that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, appeal is hereby dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against acquittal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Evidence and findings in a case involving smuggling of contraband goods.

Analysis:
The appellant, Superintendent of Customs, filed an appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in a case involving the smuggling of contraband goods. The prosecution's case was based on information received by the Police leading to the seizure of smuggled goods worth Rs. 27,24,425. The investigation revealed the involvement of the accused in the smuggling activity. The trial court acquitted the accused after considering oral and documentary evidence presented by the prosecution.

The appellant contended that the department had successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the evidence presented and refuting any false implication of the accused. On the other hand, the defense argued that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against the accused, highlighting procedural lapses by the Food Inspector.

The High Court, in its analysis, referred to established legal principles governing appeals against acquittals. It emphasized that the appellate court should not interfere with the trial court's findings unless they are vitiated by manifest illegality or the decision is characterized as perverse. The court reiterated that in cases of acquittal, there is a double presumption in favor of the accused, and the appellate court should not disturb the trial court's findings if two reasonable conclusions are possible based on the evidence.

After reviewing the trial court's judgment, oral and documentary evidence, and submissions by both parties, the High Court found significant delays in filing the complaint and material contradictions in witness testimonies. The court noted that the evidence did not support the prosecution's case, with serious lacunae and lack of independent witness corroboration. The trial court's findings of the accused not being present at the scene of the offense and the department's story being unbelievable were upheld.

Ultimately, the High Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the trial court's acquittal of the accused was justified. The court found no illegality or infirmity in the trial court's findings and dismissed the appeal, confirming the acquittal of the respondents-accused. The judgment and order of acquittal were upheld, and bail bonds, if any, were directed to be cancelled, with records to be sent back to the trial court.