TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 1076X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd it could not be proved that offence as alleged against the respondents-accused could not be established. Therefore, the learned Judge has rightly observed that the prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and rightly acquitted the accused of the charges levelled against them. - Decided against the appellant - Criminal Appeal No. 667 of 1991 - - - Dated:- 15-4-2015 - K.J. Thaker, J. Shri Y.N. Ravani, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Harshad J. Shah, Praful J. Bhatt, Ms. S.M. Ahuja, Advocates and Ms. Monali Bhatt, APP, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT The Assistant Collector of Customs has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment and order dated 30-3- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 1 and 2 were produced with arrest memo before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad and complaint was registered for the offences as aforesaid. Respondents were tried by learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, who acquitted them by the impugned order. 3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal dated 30-3-1991 rendered by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No. 123 of 1988, the appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Court. 4. Mr. Y.N. Ravani, learned advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that the order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence on record. He submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... some minor contradictions in it. He also submitted that since respondent No. 3 ran away from the spot it cannot be said that the officers of Customs could not identify him. He also submitted that one Mr. Tripathi, who had written the panchnama has also testified the manner of packing and the contents of panchnama. He also submitted that the trial Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the accused could not be convicted on the basis of statements of accused Nos. 1 and 2 recorded by the Customs Officer under Section 108 of the Customs Act. In view of above, he submitted that this appeal may be allowed by reversing the judgment of the lower Court. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that this is an appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dgment, learned trial Judge has given categorical finding that there are some contradictions in the evidence as regards the packing of the sample. It is also found that from the report it cannot be said that it is of the sample taken in the present case. It is also found that even the panch witness is also not supporting the case of the prosecution. Therefore, in my view, learned trial Judge has rightly observed that from the evidence on record it could not be proved that offence as alleged against the respondents-accused could not be established. Therefore, learned Judge has rightly observed that the prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and rightly acquitted the accused of the charges levelled against them. 7. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of acquittal. The following two passages from the report in Sheo Swarup adequately sum up the situation : There is, in their opinion, no foundation for the view, apparently supported by the judgments of some courts in India, that the High Court has no power or jurisdiction to reverse an order of acquittal on a matter of fact, except in cases in which the lower court has obstinately blundered , or has through incompetence, stupidity or perversity reached such distorted conclusions as to produce a positive miscarriage of justice, or has in some other way so conducted itself as to produce a glaring miscarriage of justice, or has been tricked by the defence so as to produce a similar result. (emphasis supplied) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hton v. State of Bihar, Sambasivan v. State of Kerala, Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P. and State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran. 9. Ms. Bhatt, learned APP is not in a position to show any evidence to take a contrary view of the matter or that the approach of the trial Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the trial Court has ignored the material evidence on record. 10. In the above view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the trial Court was completely justified in acquitting the respondent of the charges levelled against him. 11. I find that the findings recorded by the trial Court are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
