Appeal Dismissed, Acquittal Upheld under Customs Act Section

The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the respondent's acquittal under Section 135(1)(c)(ii) of the Customs Act. The court upheld the trial court's decision, emphasizing that acquittal can only be overturned if based on perverse findings or legal errors. The trial court's error in charge framing was corrected in the judgment, which concluded that since the currencies were not liable for confiscation, the offence under Section 135(1)(c)(ii) could not be established, leading to the lack of merit in the prosecution's case against the respondent.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against acquittal under Section 135(1)(c)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
1. Facts of the Case:
- The respondent was intercepted by customs officers while boarding a flight with foreign currencies exceeding permissible limits.
- The respondent admitted to not declaring the foreign currencies brought into the country.
- Charges were framed under Section 135(2) of the Customs Act against the respondent.

2. Judgment Review:
- The trial court acquitted the respondent due to the prosecution's failure to prove guilt under Section 135(1)(c)(ii).
- The High Court reviewed the evidence and upheld the trial court's decision.
- The court emphasized that acquittal can only be overturned if based on perverse findings or legal errors.

3. Charge Framing Error:
- The trial court only framed charges under Section 135(2) instead of Section 135(1)(c)(ii) as well.
- The judgment corrected this error by addressing the essential elements of the offence under Section 135(2).

4. Evidence Examination:
- The evidence presented included an order allowing the redemption of seized currencies upon payment of a penalty.
- The order clarified that the currencies were not liable for confiscation under Section 113 of the Customs Act.

5. Legal Interpretation:
- The court concluded that since the currencies were not liable for confiscation, the offence under Section 135(1)(c)(ii) could not be established.
- Without the foundation of confiscation liability, the prosecution's case against the respondent lacked merit.

6. Final Decision:
- The High Court found no grounds to interfere with the trial court's acquittal judgment.
- The appeal was dismissed, affirming the respondent's acquittal under Section 135(1)(c)(ii) of the Customs Act.

---