9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at:- The evidence of the P.W.3 has proved the fact that goods have been removed on 7th February, 1985 and P.W.4 in evidence asserted that these goods were deposited in the Customs Godown on 5th March, 1985. He had also produced the Register on Record. The question, that arises is, with whom the subject goods were lying between 7th February, 1985 to 5th March, 1988. The prosecution has neither answered this issue, nor clarified it by placing on record, evidence of any kind - The prosecution has not explained this anomaly, either in evidence or otherwise. Nobody knows who was in the custody of the subject goods from 7th February, 1985 till 5th March, 1985. There are no reasons to hold that the trial Court has committed any error in app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t while carrying out the investigation in another case of contraband goods, the Officers of Marine and Preventive (Wing) of Customs located two containers which had come on the ship, Lakoti Express Voy No.25E. One of these containers among other packages contained seven packages having marking MAPARI BOMBAY . All these packages were booked at Dubai in the name of accused nos.1 and 2. Among these goods, were electrical items like Refrigerator, Air-Conditioner etc. which according to the complainant were absolutely brand new and were not used items. The total value of the goods recovered from the said unclaimed packages was ₹ 7,81,540/-. Since all the goods constituted contraband and no one came forwarded to claim the said goods, the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned trial Judge after appreciating the oral, as well as, documentary evidence, acquitted accused nos.1 and 3 of all the offences for which they were charged, by judgment and order dated 11th October, 1999. 7. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order of acquittal, this Appeal is preferred. The Appeal was admitted and notices issued to the respondents. 8. Heard Learned Counsel, Mr. Mane for the appellant and Mr. Tajane, Learned Counsel for respondents no.1 and 3. 9. Perused the evidence and the records and proceedings. It appears from the evidence that on the basis of the investigation carried out in another case, Intelligence Officers, Marine and Preventive Wing of Customs, located two containers which had come on the ship, Lakto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ord. The question, that arises is, with whom the subject goods were lying between 7th February, 1985 to 5th March, 1988. The prosecution has neither answered this issue, nor clarified it by placing on record, evidence of any kind. At the same time, the evidence of P.W.1 who had inspected the goods would be relevant. P.W.1, Karmakar, Inspector of Central Excise would say that he examined the subject goods in the godown at Lower Parel on 9th April, 1985. It is difficult to conceive a fact that, he would examine the goods on 9th February, 1985 at Customs House as the evidence of P.W.3 has proved that the goods were deposited in the Customs House on 5th March, 1985. The prosecution has not explained this anomaly, either in evidence or otherwise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
