9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (3) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... insobigha. Public notice inviting claims to the boat and the catechu having been issued, the respondent Umed Kumar Jain claimed the boat and the catechu and after departmental adjudication those were absolutely confiscated and a fine of Rs. 2,000 was imposed on the accused-respondent under Section 114 of the Customs Act, and the boat was also confiscated under Section 115 of the Act and sold in public auction for Rs. 262 and appropriated by the Central Government. After obtaining sanction from the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Shillong the instant complaint was lodged. The seizure memo was annexed as annexure A. The adjudication order dated 26th September, 1973 was annexed as Annexure. B and the sanction order was annexed as Annexure C to the complaint. 3. At the trial before the Magistrate, prosecution examined two witnesses while the defence examined three witnesses. On the basis of the evidence on record the learned Magistrate having acquitted the accused-respondent. 4. Mr. R.P. Kakati, the learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that P.W. 1 who was the Inspector of No. 82 B.S.F, having clearly deposed that the boat attempted to ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... either perverse or unreasonable and this Court would not, therefore, interfere with the judgment of acquittal. 6. The learned trial Magistrate, on a comparison of the evidence of P.W. 1 and the defence witnesses, found that the latter had "stronger force". He also observed that P.W.1 was after all a detecting officer and had the ambition to score credit by detecting important cases and on occasions lie may not have scruple to manipulate things and that it had not been explained why the B.S.I. Inspector took two days to make over the goods to the customs authority. The defence contention, therefore, could not be brushed aside as a long time was taken for deliberations to concoct a story. 7. The seizure of the catechu, their adjudication and confiscation have not been denied by Mr. Kataki who states that the accused-respondent has appealed against the confiscations. Though, initially, Mr. Kataki submitted that there was no evidence to show that catechu was prohibited article, he, however, proceeded on the basis that it was a prohibited article. As defined in Section 2(33) of the Act, prohibited goods means any goods the import or export of which is subject to any prohibition un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1043 and Pillar No. 1042 was in the midst of the river, then how a boat near Pillar No. 1042 could be said to be near the Bangladesh border? He further said that the pillars were from north to south while the Bangladesh border fell on the western side. According to him Tinsobigha was situated in the eastern side from the place of occurrence at a distance of about 13 K.M. from Dhubri. He further said that they did not follow the men who fled away. If Pillar No. 1042 was inside the river Brahmaputra which was flowing in between Pillars Nos. 1041 and 1043 and the occupants of the boat jumped into the river Brahmaputra from the boat carrying catechu, it is difficult to see how they could not have been captured and how they could flee away from the midstream of the Brahmaputra. He also admittedly did not prepare any seizure list at the place of occurrence. He started from the place of occurrence at about 4 A.M. same day and reached Dhubri at 10/11 O'clock and he reported about the seizure of the goods only on 17th January, 1973, but the Customs Officer had received the goods only on 18th January, 1973. P.W. 2 Binow Kr. Roy was not an eye witness to the occurrence and the majhis of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubri river bank towards Tinsobigha. He categorically stated that the goods were neither taken nor intended to be taken for the purpose of exporting illegally. 12. D.W. 1 had a shop at Minbazarghat at Dhubri. He testified that the accused-respondent's boat which was proceeding downstream was called by Mahendra Majhi of the B.S.F. who asked what were the goods in the boat and at that time Basu, Bhabani Sarkar, and a few others were in his shop and that Bhabani Sarkar went through the papers. Among the papers were one challan memo and a paper containing release order of the catechu which were seized previously by the Customs. Mahendra Majhi said that he would inform the officer and when the officer came D.W. 3 Shri Chand Sethia, father of the accused respondent also arrived at the spot and the boat was detained even after production of the papers. D.W. 2, Lashmi Prasad, corroborated D.W. 1 and said that both Umed and Shree Chand came on behalf of the owner. He had a tea stall at the river bank of Minghat and saw the occurrence while sitting in his shop. D.W. 3 Shri Chand Sethia carroborated D.Ws., 1 and 2. On that date he was at Gauripur and at 8 A.M. one Majhi of the boat came and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y claimed the catechu as well as the boat stating that he was the owner thereof. The D.Ws. testified that the goods were seized at the Dhubri Minghat. 14. We have examined the evidence carefully and we have not found the view taken by the trial Court to be unreasonable. It is not a case involving exceptional circumstances for conviction of the accused-respondent after setting aside acquittal. It has not been pointed out to us that the Court below has omitted to notice any important point against the accused-respondent. It is settled law that if two views are reasonably possible the trial Court having taken one favourable to the accused, it would not be open for this Court to set aside the acquittal taking the other view in the matter. As was held in Bhim Singh v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 286=1974 Cr. L.J. 337 when two reasonable views could be possible the High Court could not set aside the acquittal. If in closely balancing the probabilities of a case, two views, one indicating conviction and the other indicating acquittal, were reasonably possible the High Court would not set aside the acquittal. In Dhan Kumar v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, AIR 1979 SC 1782, 1979 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
