Customs offence under Section 135(b) fails where guilty knowledge and confiscable character of goods are not proved.

An appeal against acquittal was held incompetent because it was not filed by a duly authorised representative of the Union of India. On merits, the charge under Section 135(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 failed because the prosecution did not satisfactorily prove the valuation or prohibited character of the coral beads, or the accused's guilty knowledge that the goods were liable to confiscation. The acquittal was therefore left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appeal was maintainable at the instance of the officer who filed the complaint and purported to represent the Union of India; (ii) whether the evidence established an offence under Section 135(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, including guilty knowledge and the goods being liable to confiscation.

Issue (i): Whether the appeal was maintainable at the instance of the officer who filed the complaint and purported to represent the Union of India.

Analysis: The complaint had been instituted by a customs officer, but the record did not show any authority in favour of the person who preferred the appeal to act for the Union of India. The Court accepted the objection that the appeal had not been filed by a competent complainant or by a duly authorised representative of the Union of India.

Conclusion: The objection on maintainability was upheld, and the appeal was incompetent.

Issue (ii): Whether the evidence established an offence under Section 135(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, including guilty knowledge and the goods being liable to confiscation.

Analysis: To attract Section 135(b), the prosecution had to establish knowledge or reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation. The Court found that the valuation of the coral beads had not been satisfactorily proved, and therefore it could not be said with certainty that the goods were prohibited or outside the admissible baggage limits. In the absence of reliable proof of prohibited character and guilty knowledge, the ingredients of the offence were not made out.

Conclusion: The charge under Section 135(b) was not proved.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal was left undisturbed because the appeal was not maintainable and, on merits, the prosecution failed to establish the offence.

Ratio Decidendi: An offence under Section 135(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 requires proof that the accused knew or had reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation, and where the valuation or prohibited character of the goods is not satisfactorily established, the charge fails; additionally, an appeal against acquittal must be presented by a competent and authorised complainant.

---