9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tayapuram Road, Tuticorin on 10-3-1998. During the raid, large quantities of cardboard boxes were recovered in the presence of three persons, who identified themselves as Rahman Sait alias Nathan, Selvaraj and Sullan. They admitted that 419 cardboard boxes contained sandalwood billet/sticks and 57 cardboard boxes contained Mangalore tiles. All were kept for export from Tuticorin to Singapore clandestinely and to be delivered to one RN Contractors Enterprise Company, Singapore. All were seized by two separate mahazars in the presence of witnesses. The seized materials were transported to the appellant s office. The sandalwood was valued at Rs. 96,52,800/- and Mangalore tiles were valued at Rs. 10,000/-. 4. After completion of the enquiry, the appellant lodged a criminal complaint as against six accused persons. During the investigation, sixth accused viz., K.M.A. Alexander was absconded and hence, the complaint against these respondents/Accused 1 to 5 has been taken cognizance in C.C. No. 2 of 2003 on the file of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, for the offences punishable under Sections 132, 132(1)(a)(ii) and 135A of the Customs Act. Later the abscondin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the material objects were produced before the Court and proved the materials which were seized from the accused persons. Further, the customs officials are not the police authorities and as such, the statements given before the customs officer are admissible in nature. By producing the statement of the accused persons, the prosecution proved its case beyond any doubt. Without considering the above facts and circumstances, the Trial Court mechanically acquitted the respondent and as such prayed for convicting the respondent. 8. The Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that even according to the case of the prosecution, the respondent attempted to export the material object to Singapore for which the appellant failed to produce any iota of evidence to prove the said allegation. There is no iota of evidence to show that the bill was fabricated in order to export the material object to Singapore. On the information given to the various department, they also proceeded as against the respondent and it is pending. Therefore, the appellant has no jurisdiction to prosecute the respondent, that too under the Customs Act. The authority, who accorded sanction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ning authority was not examined, however, the order of sanction was marked through him as Ex.P.5. He also admitted that no independent witnesses were examined while seizing the material objects. He also admitted that the alleged sandalwood seized from the godown belonged to one Kesavan. That apart, he also informed about the same to the forest department and they proceeded against the respondent separately. The alleged sandalwood was not confirmed by any expert opinion that the said objects are sandalwood. He also admitted that there is no evidence to show that the material objects about to export to Singapore. The prosecution also failed to prove that the sandalwood belonged to whom. Admittedly, the sandalwood was in the godown owned by one Kesavan. He was not implicated as an accused, which is fatal to the case of the prosecution. 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. 12. The Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent relied on the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in Chinnam Kameswara ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble view. If the answer is in the negative nothing prevents the Appellate Court from reversing the view taken by the trial Court and holding the accused guilty. On the contrary, if the view is not a reasonably possible view the Appellate Court is duty bound to interfere and prevent miscarriage of justice by suitably passing the order by punishing the offender. We have in that view no hesitation in rejecting the contention that just because the trial Court had recorded an acquittal in favour of the appellants the Appellate Court had any limitation on its power to reverse such an acquittal. Whether or not the view was reasonably possible will be seen by us a little later when we take up the merits of the contention urged by the appellant regarding involvement of the accused persons in the commission of the crime . 13. 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 ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
