2024 (2) TMI 30 - HC - Customs

Smuggling - Sandalwood - Acquittal of accused - double presumption in favour of the accused - HELD THAT - The Trial Court acquitted the respondent on the ground that no evidence was shown to prove that the respondent is Customs House Agents and they packed and kept the boxes and had an intention to attempt to export Sandal Wood, illegally, to Singapore. Admittedly, the sandalwood had arrived at Tuticorin two months before, and arrangements were made to cancel the shipping bill. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the accused had an intention to evade to pay the customs duty levied by the customs department by crossing the green gate and having escaped by wrong declaration contravening under Section 135 of the Customs Act. There are no documents on record to show that the accused forged the documents and produced the same before anybody. There is absolutely no evidence to show that the respondent is the owner of the sandalwood. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond any doubt and the Trial Court rightly acquitted the respondent. Thus, it is clear that since because the Trial Court acquitted the accused, the Appellate Court cannot interfere with the order of acquittal without any substantial and compelling reasons. There cannot be any dispute in regard to the legal proposition that an Appellate Court while entertaining an appeal from a Judgment of acquittal would not ordinarily interfere therewith, if two views are possible. In the case of acquittal, there is a double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the Trial Court. Further, if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court. The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond any doubt. Therefore, there is absolutely no ground to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court as against the respondent and the Criminal Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Trial Court's acquittal of the accused.
2. Admissibility and sufficiency of evidence presented by the prosecution.
3. Jurisdiction and procedural correctness of the customs department's actions.

Summary:

1. Legality of the Trial Court's acquittal of the accused:
The Trial Court acquitted the respondent on the grounds that no evidence was shown to prove that the respondent is Customs House Agents and they packed and kept the boxes and had an intention to attempt to export Sandal Wood, illegally, to Singapore. The sandalwood had arrived at Tuticorin two months before, and arrangements were made to cancel the shipping bill. There are no documents on record to show that the accused forged the documents and produced the same before anybody. The prosecution failed to prove that the respondent, with an intention of evading customs duty under Section 135(1)(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, attempted to export carton boxes containing prohibited sandalwood by means of forged documents, thereby causing revenue loss to the customs department and contravening Section 135A of the Customs Act.

2. Admissibility and sufficiency of evidence presented by the prosecution:
The prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.7 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13, and produced material objects M.O. 1 and M.O. 2. However, the Trial Court found the respondent not guilty for the offences under Sections 132, 132(1)(a)(ii), and 135A of the Customs Act and acquitted them of all charges. The Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant argued that the prosecution proved its case beyond any doubt, but the Trial Court acquitted the respondent on the ground that the material objects were not produced before the Trial Court, which was fatal to the prosecution's case. The sanctioning authority was not examined by the prosecution, whereas the order of sanction was marked through P.W.4. The mahazars and photographs were considered sufficient to prove the materials seized from the accused persons. The Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent argued that the prosecution failed to produce any evidence to prove the allegation of attempting to export to Singapore and that the order of acquittal cannot be disturbed by the Appellate Court unless there are substantial and compelling reasons.

3. Jurisdiction and procedural correctness of the customs department's actions:
The case of the prosecution was based on a raid conducted by the Anti-Smuggling Wing of the Customs Department at Tuticorin, where large quantities of sandalwood and Mangalore tiles were seized. The sandalwood was valued at Rs. 96,52,800/- and Mangalore tiles at Rs. 10,000/-. The prosecution failed to prove that the sandalwood belonged to the respondent or that there was an intention to export it illegally. The alleged sandalwood was not confirmed by any expert opinion, and there was no evidence to show that the material objects were about to be exported to Singapore. The prosecution also failed to prove the ownership of the sandalwood, which was in a godown owned by one Kesavan, who was not implicated as an accused.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the Criminal Appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond any doubt and there was no ground to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. The principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal were reiterated, emphasizing that an appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court unless there are substantial and compelling reasons.

← Previous Next →