2012 (2) TMI 161 - HC - Central Excise

Acquittal of accused from the charges u/s 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 - seizure of recovery (gold biscuits and Indian currency) from accused petitioner(prosection) challenging the same Held that - Trial Judge observed that Prosecution failed to examine independent witnesses without any sufficient reasons. It was a very material lacuna in the case of the prosecution which cast a very strong doubt over the seizure memo/punchnama dated 01.11.1990. Benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused. Therefore, Trial judge has acquitted the accused not only on the ground argued but also considered the other evidence also Decided against the petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to judgment on various grounds, including sanction for prosecution.
2. Failure of seizing officer to appear for cross-examination.
3. Proof of sanction for prosecution.
4. Non-examination of independent public witnesses.
5. Benefit of doubt in favor of the accused.
6. Relevance of cited judgments in the case.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the judgment based on various grounds, particularly focusing on the issue of sanction for prosecution. The petitioner argued that the court overlooked the fact that sanction for prosecution had been filed with the complaint, leading to the framing of charges. The petitioner contended that the charge was based on the proved and exhibited sanction of prosecution.

2. The seizing officer, PW1, did not appear for cross-examination after the charge. Despite this, it was highlighted that the object behind obtaining sanction for prosecution was to ensure the validity of evidence even in the absence of the seizing officer due to incapacity or demise. The court emphasized that pre-charge and per-charge cross-examination evidence would remain valid.

3. The counsel raised concerns regarding the proof of sanction for prosecution. Even if cross-examination of the seizing officer was deemed necessary for sanction of prosecution, it was argued that the respondent should not have been acquitted but rather the proceedings could have been dropped against him.

4. The non-examination of independent public witnesses, crucial for the prosecution's case, was identified as a significant lacuna. Despite being cited as witnesses, the prosecution failed to present them, leading to doubts regarding the seizure memo. This omission was considered fatal to the prosecution's case, resulting in the benefit of doubt being granted to the accused.

5. The trial judge, after thorough examination, concluded that the benefit of doubt favored the accused, leading to their acquittal from the charges under the Customs Act, 1962. The judge emphasized that the acquittal was not solely based on the arguments presented but also on a comprehensive review of the evidence.

6. The relevance of cited judgments in the case was scrutinized, with the court determining that they did not align with the specific facts and circumstances at hand. It was clarified that the judgments would have been pertinent if the accused had been discharged at the initial stage based on prosecution sanction or acquitted solely due to unproven sanction.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the trial judge's decision and dismissed the petition, emphasizing that there were no discrepancies in the impugned judgment warranting interference.