https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202975 Appeal against acquittal was maintainable under Section 378(1) CrPC; the bar relating to enhancement of sentence under Section 377(2) did not apply, so the maintainability objection failed. The prosecution also failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused were in conscious possession of smuggled silver bricks or had knowledge of concealment under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, as the independent witnesses, seizure chain, and supporting documents were not satisfactorily proved and the Section 108 statements were unreliable on the facts. The sanction to prosecute was further held invalid for want of proper application of mind to the foundational material, seizure particulars, and individual roles. en-us Mon, 06 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Apr 2011 08:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202975 Appeal against acquittal was maintainable under Section 378(1) CrPC; the bar relating to enhancement of sentence under Section 377(2) did not apply, so the maintainability objection failed. The prosecution also failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused were in conscious possession of smuggled silver bricks or had knowledge of concealment under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, as the independent witnesses, seizure chain, and supporting documents were not satisfactorily proved and the Section 108 statements were unreliable on the facts. The sanction to prosecute was further held invalid for want of proper application of mind to the foundational material, seizure particulars, and individual roles. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 06 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202975