Unbroken custody of seized goods is essential; unexplained gaps in movement evidence supported confirmation of acquittal.

An acquittal under the Customs Act, the Imports and Exports (Control) Act and the IPC was upheld because the prosecution failed to prove uninterrupted custody of the seized goods. The evidence left an unexplained gap between removal from Indira Dock and alleged deposit in the Customs godown, and the record also contained inconsistencies about inspection dates and the place of examination. In the absence of proof of custody and movement, the prosecution case remained unsubstantiated, and the trial court's view was held to be reasonable and plausible. No interference with the acquittal was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal of the accused persons for offences under the Customs Act, the Imports and Exports (Control) Act and the Indian Penal Code called for interference in appeal when the prosecution failed to establish uninterrupted custody of the seized goods.

Analysis: The prosecution evidence showed that the goods were removed from Indira Dock on 7 February 1985 and were said to have been deposited in the Customs godown only on 5 March 1985, but no evidence explained where the goods remained during that intervening period. The record also left unexplained the inconsistency regarding inspection dates and the place where the goods were examined. In the absence of proof establishing the custody and movement of the seized goods, the prosecution version remained unsubstantiated. The trial court's assessment of the evidence therefore represented a reasonable and plausible view.

Conclusion: No interference with the acquittal was warranted, and the acquittal stood confirmed.

---