Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2015 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 1043 - HC - CustomsAppeal against Acquittal Evidence on record Respondent was intercepted at departure hall and cannabis weighing 53.5 Kgs were recovered from him Trial Court on analysis of evidence acquitted Respondent under Sections 21(c), 23 and 28 of NDPS Act Whether grounds on which respondent was acquitted were justified Held that - Petitioner was unable to explain how address of panch witness was not traceable, raising serious doubts on whether recovery and seizure took place in presence of said panch witnesses Having recorded that seizure of contraband took place in their presence, failure to produce them as witnesses would result in adverse inference being drawn against prosecution Evidence of PW-1 was indeed riddled with inconsistencies which were not sufficiently explained by prosecution It also appeared that Respondent was able to establish that his statement recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act was not voluntary Thus, trial Court was justified in granting Respondent benefit of doubt and acquitting from charges Decided against Revenue.
Issues:
1. Customs Department seeking leave to appeal against judgment acquitting the Respondent under NDPS Act. 2. Prosecution's case against the Respondent based on recovery of narcotic substance at the airport. 3. Analysis of evidence and witness testimonies in the trial court. 4. Conclusions reached by the trial court leading to the acquittal of the Respondent. 5. Evaluation of errors or inconsistencies in the prosecution's case. 6. Justification of the trial court's decision to grant the benefit of doubt to the Respondent. Issue 1: The Customs Department sought leave to appeal against the judgment acquitting the Respondent under Sections 21(c) and 23 read with Section 28 of the NDPS Act. The Respondent, a British passport holder, was intercepted at the airport carrying narcotic substances in his checked-in baggages. Despite evidence presented, the trial court acquitted the Respondent, prompting the Customs Department to appeal the decision. Issue 2: The prosecution's case relied on the recovery of narcotic substances from the Respondent's checked-in baggages at the airport. The substances were identified as hashish after chemical analysis by the Central Revenues Control Laboratory. The Respondent's statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act indicated his awareness of the illegal nature of carrying narcotics. Issue 3: The trial court analyzed the evidence and witness testimonies, highlighting inconsistencies and failures in the prosecution's case. Contradictions in witness testimonies, lack of corroboration, and procedural errors were noted. The Respondent's defense claimed coercion, mistreatment, and involuntary statements, casting doubt on the prosecution's narrative. Issue 4: The trial court concluded that no errors were committed in its analysis of the evidence, leading to the acquittal of the Respondent. The court found discrepancies in the prosecution's case, including the failure to establish the origin of the recovered substances and procedural lapses in handling evidence. Issue 5: The judgment evaluated errors and inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, such as the unexplained withdrawal of a witness, contradictions in witness testimonies, and doubts regarding the authenticity of evidence presented. The Respondent's claims of mistreatment and coercion further undermined the prosecution's case. Issue 6: The trial court justified granting the Respondent the benefit of doubt based on the inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, lack of corroborative evidence, and doubts raised regarding the voluntariness of the Respondent's statements. The decision to acquit the Respondent was supported by the court's assessment of the evidence and procedural lapses in the prosecution's case. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the Customs Department's petition for leave to appeal, upholding the trial court's decision to acquit the Respondent based on the benefit of doubt. The judgment scrutinized the prosecution's case, highlighting errors, inconsistencies, and procedural lapses that led to the acquittal.
|