Appeal against acquittal fails where circumstantial evidence and serial-number duplication do not exclude innocence.

In an appeal against acquittal in a Central Excise prosecution, interference is warranted only if the trial court's view is perverse or against the weight of evidence; where two reasonable views are possible, the acquittal stands. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence and alleged duplication of serial numbers on match bundles, but the evidence did not prove that the seized goods and earlier bundles were from the same accounting period, and the yearly restart of serial numbers allowed an innocent explanation. The absence of a gate pass alone did not establish unlawful removal or duty evasion. The acquittal was therefore not disturbed and the appeals failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal recorded by the trial court in a prosecution under the Central Excise law, based substantially on circumstantial evidence and alleged serial-number duplication on match bundles, called for interference in appeal.

Analysis: The prosecution case rested on an inference that match bundles found in a van had been removed from the factories without gate passes and without payment of duty because some serial numbers on those bundles matched numbers found on wrappers and bundles already in circulation. The evidence, however, did not establish with certainty that the recovered wrappers and bundles were from the same accounting period as the seized goods, and the admitted practice of restarting serial numbers each year created a real possibility of innocent duplication. The absence of a gate pass, by itself, did not prove unlawful removal for evasion of duty. In an appeal against acquittal, interference is justified only where the trial court's conclusion is perverse or against the weight of evidence; where two reasonable views are possible, the appellate court should not substitute its own view merely because another view is possible.

Conclusion: The acquittal was not shown to be unjustified, and the appeals against acquittal were liable to fail.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal against acquittal, a conviction cannot rest on incomplete circumstantial evidence or on a mere coincidence of serial numbers unless the chain of circumstances excludes every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence; if the trial court's view is a reasonable one, the acquittal should not be disturbed.

---