TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th March, 1988. The prosecution has neither answered this issue, nor clarified it by placing on record, evidence of any kind. At the same time, the evidence of P.W.1 who had inspected the goods would be relevant - Nobody knows who was in the custody of the subject goods from 7th February, 1985 till 5th March, 1985. There is no reason to hold that the trial Court has committed any error in appreciating the evidence and recording the order of acquittal against accused nos. 1 and 3 - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 700 OF 2000 - - - Dated:- 6-1-2018 - SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J. Mr. Ashok B. Tajane, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. K.V. Saste, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent no.3, State. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds, were electrical items like Refrigerator, Air-Conditioner etc. which according to the complainant were absolutely brand new and were not used items. The total value of the goods recovered from the said unclaimed packages was ₹ 7,81,540/-. Since all the goods constituted contraband and no one came forwarded to claim the said goods, the same were seized by Officer, S.B. Karmalkar in the reasonable belief that, they were smuggled into India and as such liable for confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962. 4. The investigation revealed that, the goods so seized were consigned to accused no.1 purporting to be under the T.R. facility and as such he was directed to remain present before the Superintendent of Customs , C.I.U., M P Wing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant and Mr. Tajane, Learned Counsel for respondents no.1 and 3. 9. Perused the evidence and the records and proceedings. It appears from the evidence that on the basis of the investigation carried out in another case, Intelligence Officers, Marine and Preventive Wing of Customs, located two containers which had come on the ship, Laktoi Express Voy No.25E, wherein two containers containing seven packages marked as MARINE BOMBAY were booked at Dubai in the name of accused no.1. P.W.3, Inspector of Central Excise, Babu Bhanushankar Pandit stated in his evidence that on 6th February, 1985 he went to unaccompanied baggage centre at Indira Dock and on 7th February, 1985 removed the packages which were lying in the warehouse of the In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods in the godown at Lower Parel on 9th April, 1985. It is difficult to conceive a fact that, he would examine the goods on 9th February, 1985 at Customs House as the evidence of P.W.3 has proved that the goods were deposited in the Customs House on 5th March, 1985. The prosecution has not explained this anomaly, either in evidence or otherwise. Nobody knows who was in the custody of the subject goods from 7th February, 1985 till 5th March, 1985. 12. In the circumstances, I do not see any reason to hold that the trial Court has committed any error in appreciating the evidence and recording the order of acquittal against accused nos.1 and 3. The view taken by the Learned trial Judge is a plausible and reasonable and as such no interferen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
