2012 (9) TMI 113 - HC - Customs

Order of acquittal - offences punishable under Sections 135(1)(b)(i) of the Gold Control Act 1968 - accused was carrying 50 gold pellets - accused had no permit or licence to carry the gold pellets Held that - Search and seizure was not conducted in accordance with Sections 100 to 105 of the Customs Act inasmuch as independent witnesses who are also the inhabitants of the locality have not been examined - provisions of Section 212 of the Cr. P.C. which are applicable in respect of a proceeding conducted under the Cr. P.C. cannot be applied to the present - delay in obtaining the sanction order and there was also delay in filing the complaint and the said delays are not properly explained and even the mahazar witness to the sport mahazar and seizure mahazar were not examined before the court - accused is entitled to be acquitted of the offence with which he was charged

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to judgment of acquittal under Sections 135(1)(b)(i) of the Gold Control Act, 1968.

Comprehensive Analysis:

1. Prosecution's Case and Investigation:
The case involved the accused being apprehended while traveling with 50 gold pellets without a permit. The complaint led to the charge sheet against the accused for offences under the Gold Control Act, 1968.

2. Trial Proceedings:
During the trial, three witnesses were examined on behalf of the complainant, and sixty documents were marked. The accused did not plead guilty and did not present any evidence in defense. The trial court found defects in the prosecution's case.

3. Defects in Prosecution's Case:
The trial court identified several defects in the prosecution's case. It noted that the search and seizure were not conducted as per Customs Act provisions. The witnesses to the seizure mahazar were not examined, leading to disbelief in the seizure of gold pellets.

4. Sanctioning Authority and Procedure:
The trial court highlighted issues with the sanction order, indicating that the authority did not review the relevant materials before issuing the sanction letter. Additionally, the court found discrepancies in the application of procedural requirements under the Cr. P.C.

5. Delays and Witness Examination:
Delays in obtaining the sanction order and filing the complaint were not adequately explained. The trial court also noted the non-examination of key witnesses such as the mahazar witness and the scribe of the accused's voluntary statement.

6. Judgment and Order of Acquittal:
Based on the defects in the prosecution's case, the trial judge acquitted the accused. The appellate court, after reviewing the trial court's findings, concluded that interference in the order of acquittal was not warranted unless the finding was entirely unreasonable or perverse, which was not the case here.

7. Final Decision:
Consequently, the appeal challenging the judgment of acquittal was dismissed by the court, upholding the trial court's decision based on the identified defects in the prosecution's case and the lack of grounds for interference in the acquittal order.