2018 (2) TMI 140 - HC - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - acquittal of accused - Held that - after filing of the complaint case before the trial Court the complainant and its witnesses shied away and did not turn up to the Court for cross-examination after pre-charge evidence were recorded - There was no alternative for the trial Court except to dismiss the complaint and to acquit the accused - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against acquittal under Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The judgment involves an appeal filed by the Assistant Collector of Customs and Central Excise against the acquittal of the respondents-accused in a case under Sections 9 and 9-AA of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. The trial court had acquitted the accused based on the lack of trustworthy evidence produced by the prosecution. The trial court observed that witnesses did not appear for cross-examination, leading to their evidence being considered without evidentiary value or sanctity. The trial court also noted that the case was primarily based on documentary evidence, and the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. As a result, the trial court acquitted the accused, giving them the benefit of the doubt.

In the judgment, it was highlighted that the complainant and its witnesses did not show up for cross-examination after the pre-charge evidence was recorded. This absence of witnesses for cross-examination led to the court dismissing the complaint and acquitting the accused. The court found that there was no proof of the allegations made against the accused, as no partnership deed or relevant documents were presented. The lack of evidence connecting the accused to the offense charged resulted in the prosecution failing to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the trial court's decision to acquit the accused was deemed appropriate based on the circumstances and evidence presented.

In conclusion, the appeal against the acquittal of the respondents-accused under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, was dismissed by the High Court. The judgment emphasized the importance of presenting trustworthy evidence and the necessity of witnesses appearing for cross-examination to establish guilt in such cases. The court upheld the trial court's decision to acquit the accused due to the prosecution's failure to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, ultimately giving the benefit of the doubt to the accused.