https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218289 Revisional interference against a customs conviction is confined to illegality or material irregularity, not full reappreciation of evidence, and the conviction was therefore sustained. The prosecution evidence from the complainant, translating officer and investigating officer, together with surrounding circumstances linking the accused to the luggage, passport, ticket and foreign currency, was found sufficient. Non-examination of panch witnesses was not fatal because the principal witness and contemporaneous mahazar adequately supported the case. The sanction challenge failed as the order was marked without objection and showed consideration of the investigation. Omission of one sub-clause in the charge caused no prejudice because the accused understood the accusation, and section 106 of the Evidence Act did not assist the defence after the prosecution first established incriminating circumstances. en-us Fri, 14 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Oct 2012 11:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218289 Revisional interference against a customs conviction is confined to illegality or material irregularity, not full reappreciation of evidence, and the conviction was therefore sustained. The prosecution evidence from the complainant, translating officer and investigating officer, together with surrounding circumstances linking the accused to the luggage, passport, ticket and foreign currency, was found sufficient. Non-examination of panch witnesses was not fatal because the principal witness and contemporaneous mahazar adequately supported the case. The sanction challenge failed as the order was marked without objection and showed consideration of the investigation. Omission of one sub-clause in the charge caused no prejudice because the accused understood the accusation, and section 106 of the Evidence Act did not assist the defence after the prosecution first established incriminating circumstances. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 14 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218289