Chain of custody gaps in seized goods evidence justified acquittal and defeated appellate interference.

An acquittal under the Customs Act, the Imports and Exports (Control) Act and the Indian Penal Code was upheld because the prosecution failed to prove a clear chain of custody for the seized goods. The evidence contained an unexplained discrepancy on when the packages were removed and when they were deposited in the customs godown, and the intervening period was not accounted for. In that situation, the trial court's appreciation of evidence was treated as plausible and reasonable, and no appellate interference was warranted. The acquittal therefore remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal of the accused for offences under the Customs Act, the Imports and Exports (Control) Act and the Indian Penal Code called for interference in appeal.

Analysis: The evidence showed a discrepancy regarding the custody and movement of the seized goods. One witness stated that the packages were removed from Indira Dock on 7 February 1985, while another stated that the goods were deposited in the customs godown only on 5 March 1985. The prosecution did not explain where the goods remained in the intervening period or reconcile the inconsistency in the evidence. In the absence of a clear chain of custody and satisfactory proof of the prosecution case, the trial court's appreciation of evidence could not be said to be erroneous.

Conclusion: The acquittal was held to be based on a plausible and reasonable view and was not interfered with; the appeal was dismissed.

---