Customs appeal maintainability and Section 135(b) proof require authorised complainant status, confiscability, and guilty knowledge.

In a complaint-based customs prosecution, an appeal against acquittal was maintainable only by a competent complainant or duly authorised representative; a customs officer could not proceed in the name of the Union of India without proof of authority. For offence under Section 135(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, the prosecution had to prove possession of the goods, their liability to confiscation, and the accused's knowledge or reason to believe. The article notes that where valuation and importability of the goods were not satisfactorily established, the evidentiary basis for conviction was lacking and the acquittal remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appeal against acquittal was maintainable at the instance of the customs officer who filed the complaint and whether he could represent the Union of India; (ii) whether the ingredients of an offence under Section 135(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 were established, including guilty knowledge and liability of the goods to confiscation.

Issue (i): whether the appeal against acquittal was maintainable at the instance of the customs officer who filed the complaint and whether he could represent the Union of India

Analysis: The complaint had been instituted by an Assistant Collector of Customs describing himself as representing the Union of India, but there was nothing to show that he was authorised to do so or that the Union of India itself had filed the complaint through a duly empowered representative. The Court held that the right of appeal in a complaint case lay with the complainant as such, and that the appellant had not established competence to prefer the appeal in the name of the Union of India.

Conclusion: The appeal was held to be not maintainable.

Issue (ii): whether the ingredients of an offence under Section 135(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 were established, including guilty knowledge and liability of the goods to confiscation

Analysis: The Court affirmed the earlier view that the facts attracted Section 135(b) rather than Section 135(a). However, for conviction under Section 135(b), the prosecution had to establish not only possession of the goods but also that they were liable to confiscation and that the accused had the requisite knowledge or reason to believe. On the evidence, the valuation of the coral goods was not satisfactorily proved, and without such proof it could not be concluded with certainty that the goods were prohibited or otherwise ineligible for import. The Court therefore found insufficient basis to interfere with the acquittal on merits as well.

Conclusion: The ingredients of the offence were not proved to the required standard, and the acquittal was not liable to be disturbed.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the acquittal failed both on maintainability and on merits, leaving the acquittal undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a complaint-based prosecution, an appeal against acquittal is maintainable only by a competent complainant or duly authorised representative, and conviction under Section 135(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 requires proof of both the accused's requisite knowledge and the goods' liability to confiscation.

---