Appellate interference with acquittal in customs prosecution declined where evidence was uncorroborated and material gaps remained.

In a customs and import control prosecution, the HC found no basis to interfere with the trial court's acquittal because the prosecution case depended mainly on two customs officers, lacked independent corroboration, and was unsupported by reliable contemporaneous evidence of seizure. Prior statements, departmental reports, and the panchanama did not cure the material gaps, and other available customs officers were not examined. Applying the settled rule that an acquittal should not be disturbed where the trial court's view is possible and probable, and the evidence does not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the acquittal was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal recorded by the trial court in a prosecution under the customs and import control law called for interference in appeal.

Analysis: The prosecution case rested mainly on two customs officers, without independent witnesses, recorded prior statements of those witnesses, or the departmental reports said to have been made by them. The panchanama and surrounding circumstances also left material gaps, including the absence of reliable contemporaneous support for the seizure narrative and the failure to examine other available customs officers. In an appeal against acquittal, interference is unwarranted where the trial court's view is a possible and probable view, and the appellate court is unable to say that the prosecution evidence had been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Conclusion: The acquittal was not liable to be disturbed and the appeal failed.

---