https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391032 Proof of the complaint, sanction for prosecution, and lawful seizure was essential in this customs prosecution, and the failure to prove these foundational documents through proper evidence was fatal to the case. The seizure panchnama was not established because no panch witness was examined, and the prosecution also failed to show compliance with the mandatory safeguard under Section 102 of the Customs Act, namely informing the accused of the right to be taken before a gazetted officer or magistrate before search. The alleged Section 108 statement was not treated as reliable without independent corroboration. On these facts, the acquittal was properly sustained and no interference was warranted. en-us Wed, 08 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Jan 2020 18:28:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391032 Proof of the complaint, sanction for prosecution, and lawful seizure was essential in this customs prosecution, and the failure to prove these foundational documents through proper evidence was fatal to the case. The seizure panchnama was not established because no panch witness was examined, and the prosecution also failed to show compliance with the mandatory safeguard under Section 102 of the Customs Act, namely informing the accused of the right to be taken before a gazetted officer or magistrate before search. The alleged Section 108 statement was not treated as reliable without independent corroboration. On these facts, the acquittal was properly sustained and no interference was warranted. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 08 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391032