Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2014 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 1022 - BOMBAY HIGH COURTValidity of Order of acquittal – Sufficient Evidence - Conscious possession of the contraband article – Panch Witness - Charge of commission of offences u/s 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 and u/s 85(1)(ii)(a) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 - Held that:- It is difficult to accept that the Trial Court had not taken into consideration the relevant facts of the evidence adduced by the prosecution or has not passed the judgment upon the evidence surfaced at the trial - Such a conclusion is inevitable as the matter stated/recorded into few pages clearly reveal that the Trial Court has meticulously considered the evidence of PW 1, PW 3 and PW 4 in the same - On the basis of such a material surfaced during the prosecution evidence, Trial Court had come to the conclusion of their being variance regarding the place at which the seizure panchnama was drawn i.e. whether drawn at the spot of the seizure rear of Pritam Hotel or as claimed by PW 1 in the office of the Customs - It is difficult to find any fault with the observations made by the Trial Court that out of the said witnesses PW 1 being involved in a raid, was an interested witness, while PW 3 was the independent witness. For coming to the conclusion about guilt of the respondent, it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that the respondent was in conscious possession of the contraband article i.e. the gold when he was prohibited by raiding party at the spot - There being paucity of evidence of independent witnesses regarding the said aspect, the Trial Court had declined to draw such inference on the basis of the evidence of the members of the raiding party i.e. PW 1 and PW 4 - The said conclusion drawn by the Trial Court being based upon the relevant facts of the evidence of the members of the raiding party and particularly that of PW 1 and of the panch witnesses and absence of signatures of panch witnesses on the box, can neither be said to be perverse nor can be de hors the evidence of the witnesses - The reasons given also cannot be said to be erroneous or de hors material surfaced at the trial - Thus, finding reached by the Trial Court of the defence version being true also cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse in light of the reasons given for the same - The order of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court cannot be said to be improper upon the possible view of the evidence surfaced at the trial - No case is made out for interfering with the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court - Resultantly, appeal stands dismissed – Decided against Appellant.
|