9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (9) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esses recovered 198 gold pellets weighing 23.87 Kgs. of foreign origin. On the basis of it, charge sheet was filed against the respondents. However, the respondents denied the charges levelled against them and claimed to be tried. To substantiate the case, the prosecution has examined P. Ws. 1 to 8. M. Os. 1 & 2 & Exs. P-1 to P-6 (c) were got marked. 2.P. Ws. 1 & 4 speak about the information being furnished by R-3 and also going to the spot where R-1 & 2 were residing on that particular day and also about the seizure of gold of foreign origin. P. W. 2 recorded the statement of R-1 as per Ex. P-4. P. W. 3 is the Inspector of Customs. P. Ws. 5 & 6 are the panch witnesses who turned hostile when they were examined before Court they did not s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ex. P-1, the mahazar under which the gold is said to have been seized. Therefore, the evidence of P. Ws. 5 & 6 who are the independent witnesses is not available for the prosecution. It is no doubt true that the evidence of P. Ws. 1 & 4 & other witnesses who are connected with the Customs Department can be accepted if their evidence is otherwise believable. In view of this, it is now necessary to find out as to whether the appellant has established the case against the respondent. According to the case made out by the appellant, the respondent No. 3 informed the Customs Officers regarding the gold pellets being hidden by A-1 in the premises. They came all the way from Coondapur to the house where appellants 1 & 2 were residing. They never ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quantity of gold has been seized under mahazar and the Court has to presume that it was seized at the instance of R-3 and from the custody of R-1 & R-2. When the appellant was aware that large quantity of gold was hidden, it was incumbent on the appellant to secure respectable witnesses who would support the case of the appellant. On the other hand, it is not open to the Court to presume that the respondent was in possession of the gold pellets as alleged by the prosecution. 6.Besides that, the prosecution has not marked the sanction said to have been obtained to prosecute these respondents. The learned Court below has held that some order is produced but the same is not marked through any witness. Therefore, it is clear that sanction als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
