Retractions and non-examination of a material witness barred reliance on customs statements, leaving acquittal undisturbed.

In an appeal against acquittal, interference is warranted only if the trial court's view is perverse or wholly unreasonable. Retracted statements recorded by customs officers could not, without corroboration, sustain conviction, and the evidence of a tainted witness was insufficient on its own. The prosecution's failure to examine a material passenger witness, Abdul Aziz, further weakened its case, and Section 138B of the Customs Act did not excuse that omission. Recovery of empty tins from one accused's house did not restore the reliability of the retracted statements. The acquittal was therefore not disturbed, as guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order of acquittal was perverse or otherwise called for interference in appeal; whether retracted statements recorded by customs officers and the non-examination of the key passenger witness could sustain a conviction.

Analysis: In an appeal against acquittal, interference is justified only where the trial court's view is perverse or one that no reasonable court could take. The prosecution case rested substantially on statements recorded by customs officers from accused persons, but those statements had been retracted and therefore required corroboration before reliance could be placed on them. The evidence of the loader was treated as tainted and incapable of independently supporting the prosecution version. The prosecution also failed to examine Abdul Aziz, whose testimony was material because the suitcase had been checked in in his name and he was the passenger who would have been expected to carry the baggage to Dubai. In these circumstances, Section 138B of the Customs Act did not justify dispensing with his evidence, and the trial court's criticism of the prosecution was justified. The recovery of empty tins from the house of one accused did not by itself render the retracted statements trustworthy or sufficient to upset the acquittal.

Conclusion: The acquittal was not shown to be perverse, and no ground for appellate interference was made out; the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal against acquittal, retracted customs statements cannot be acted upon without corroboration, and where a material witness is available and not examined, the acquittal will not be disturbed unless the trial court's view is perverse.

---