9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 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 b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted that pending the appeal, the third respondent/Accused No. 3 died. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as abated as against the third respondent/Accused No. 3. 4. The case of the prosecution is that on secret information, the Anti-Smuggling Wing of the Customs Department at Tuticorin, conducted a raid in a warehouse situated at Door No. 111, Ettayapuram 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/-. 5. After completion of the enquiry, the appellant lodged a criminal complaint as against six accused persons. During the investigat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e materials were seized from the accused persons. Further, any statement made before the customs officers is admissible in evidence. During the adjudication process, the accused persons were imposed fine by the adjudicating authority. It was challenged before the Tribunal. Though it was set aside in the adjudication proceedings again on the appeal, penalty imposed as against the respondents by the Commissioner was confirmed and the same was not challenged before any court of law by the respondents. The photographs 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 respondents and as such prayed for convicting the respondents. 9. Per contra, the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that there are five accused in C.C. No. 2 of 2003. In ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 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. That apart, the prosecution failed to prove that the respondents with an intention of evading in paying customs duty under Section 135(1)(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, had attempted to export carton boxes containing prohibited sandalwood by means of forged documents thereby causing revenue loss to the customs department and contravention of Section 135A of the Customs Act. 12. On perusal of the deposition of P.W.2 revealed that the sanctioning authority was not examined, however, the order of sanction was marked through him as Ex.P.1. 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. 13. It is relevant to rely upon th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the nature of flourishes of language to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is 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. (5) 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. (Emphasis supplied) 12. What, therefore, needs to be examined in the light of the settled legal position is whether the view taken by the trial Court acquitting the accused was a reasonably possible view. If the answer is in the negative nothing prevents the Appellate Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
