2024 (2) TMI 31 - 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.

Summary

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 seizure by the Customs Department.
4. Applicability of legal principles regarding appellate court's interference with acquittal.

Summary:

1. Legality of the Trial Court's Acquittal:
The trial court acquitted the respondents on the grounds that no evidence was presented to prove that the respondents were Customs House Agents or that they had an intention to export sandalwood illegally. The prosecution failed to demonstrate that the respondents attempted to evade customs duty or used forged documents.

2. Admissibility and Sufficiency of Evidence:
The trial court found that the material objects were not produced before it, which was deemed fatal to the prosecution's case. The sanctioning authority was not examined, and the order of sanction was marked through P.W.2. The prosecution did not produce independent witnesses present during the seizure, nor did it prove that the seized materials were indeed sandalwood. The appellate court noted that the trial court had rightly acquitted the respondents due to these evidentiary deficiencies.

3. Jurisdiction and Procedural Correctness of the Seizure:
The sandalwood was seized from a godown owned by one Kesavan, who was not implicated as an accused, which was considered fatal to the prosecution's case. The appellate court highlighted that the sandalwood was not within the jurisdiction of the Customs Department and that the forest department had also proceeded against the respondents separately.

4. Applicability of Legal Principles Regarding Appellate Court's Interference with Acquittal:
The appellate court emphasized that there is a double presumption of innocence in favor of the accused in cases of acquittal. Citing the Supreme Court's judgments, the court reiterated that an appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal unless there are substantial and compelling reasons. The court found no ground to interfere with the trial court's order of acquittal, as the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Conclusion:
The appellate court dismissed the criminal appeal, upholding the trial court's acquittal of the respondents due to insufficient evidence, procedural lapses, and the lack of jurisdiction by the Customs Department. The court reiterated the principle that an appellate court should not disturb an acquittal unless there are substantial and compelling reasons.