https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251165 An acquittal in a customs prosecution was upheld because the conviction case rested substantially on a retracted statement under the Customs Act and the co-traveller was not produced for cross-examination. The absence of the key witness, together with non-production of panch witnesses, denied the accused an effective opportunity to test the prosecution version and caused serious prejudice. Since the statement had been retracted at the first available opportunity, its material parts required independent corroboration, which the surrounding circumstances did not supply. In an appeal against acquittal, interference is justified only where the trial court's view is perverse or against the weight of evidence, and no such basis existed. en-us Thu, 28 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Jun 2015 15:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251165 An acquittal in a customs prosecution was upheld because the conviction case rested substantially on a retracted statement under the Customs Act and the co-traveller was not produced for cross-examination. The absence of the key witness, together with non-production of panch witnesses, denied the accused an effective opportunity to test the prosecution version and caused serious prejudice. Since the statement had been retracted at the first available opportunity, its material parts required independent corroboration, which the surrounding circumstances did not supply. In an appeal against acquittal, interference is justified only where the trial court's view is perverse or against the weight of evidence, and no such basis existed. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 28 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251165