Benefit of doubt in Customs Act prosecution upheld where recovery evidence and section 108 statement lacked corroboration.

Acquittal under the Customs Act was upheld because the prosecution evidence did not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The principal witness did not support the alleged recovery, the panch witnesses said their signatures were taken on pre-prepared documents, and the goldsmith's evidence on the seized article's nature was not scientifically verified. The statement recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act was also found insufficiently corroborated, as the alleged associate and vehicle were not traced. In these circumstances, the trial court's grant of benefit of doubt was held justified and interference was not warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal for the offence under the Customs Act called for interference on the basis of the recovery evidence, the statement recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, and the testimony of the witnesses.

Analysis: The prosecution version was not supported by the most material witness, who denied seeing the respondent come out of the toilet or pick up the packet, though she admitted that a packet was found under the wash-basin. The other witnesses also did not firmly support the prosecution case, with the panch witnesses stating that their signatures were taken on pre-prepared documents. The evidence of the goldsmith did not remove doubt about the nature of the seized article, as the purity examination was only by touch-stone method and no scientific verification was made. The statement under section 108 of the Customs Act, though relied upon by the appellant, was not sufficiently corroborated by independent investigation, particularly as the alleged associate and vehicle were not traced. On the whole record, the trial court's view extending the benefit of doubt was found to be justified.

Conclusion: The acquittal was rightly upheld and interference was not warranted; the appeal failed.

---