TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (12) TMI 233
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the panchas, the investigating officer and the accused; thereafter in their presence sealed with DRI Seal No. 9. 3. On 10-10-1991, the sealed contraband was taken to the office of Additional Director, DRI; the seals were broken in the presence of the panchas Bakhtawar Singh and Vinod Kumar; the packet containing the contraband i.e. 360 gold biscuits was displayed on television. The above mentioned material was again repacked/put back in the same packet, packed and sealed with the seal of DRI No. 9 with the paper slips bearing signatures of the panchas and the investigating officer S.K. Sharma. This panchnama is Ex. PW-1/N. 4. On 21-10-1991, an application was made before the learned MM by the DRI under Section 110(1)(1B) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the disposal of the case property as also for certifying the correctness of the panchnama dated 9-10-1991; orders on this application was passed on 13-2-1992. While disposing of this application in the order dated 13-2-1992, it had been noted by the Trial Judge that box contained three black vensalies, adhesive tapes, one cloth piece sealed at places and two paper slips beneath the seals. It ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the petitioner. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of this court in Amarjit Singh & Anr. v. State (Delhi Admn.) - 1995 CRI.L.J. 1623 to support his submission that where in similar circumstances the case property had been displayed before a television crew the court had held that the case of the prosecution had been thrown overboard by such ill-advised acts of the police officials and the petitioner in that case had been held entitled to an acquittal. It is submitted that on the same analogy the petitioner is also entitled to an acquittal as the possibility of tampering of the case property cannot be excluded. 11. On the first blush this argument appeared to be impressive but on the perusal of the evidence on record it appears otherwise. It is not in dispute that on 9-10-1991 the seal of the DRI was used and the paper slips had been affixed on the case property which had been sealed. On 10-10-1991, the second panchnama Ex. PW-1/N clearly records that the paper slips had been removed in the presence of two subsequent Panchas i.e. Bakhtawar Singh and Vinod Kumar and after the display of the case property before the media, the contraband....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rovisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The second judgment and the proposition of law enunciated and relied upon therein is not disputed; it is an undisputed proposition that there is no estoppel against the plea of sanction which can be raised at any stage. The third judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is also not a disputed proposition as a valid sanction has to be proved by the Sanctioning Authority and the facts constituting the offence have to be placed before the Sanctioning Authority before the same can be granted. 15. Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon a judgment of this court in State of Tamil Nadu v. M.M. Rajendran - (1998) 9 SCC 268 to support this submission. In this case, the relevant material which included the statements recorded before the investigating officer had not been placed before the Sanctioning Authority; sanction had stood vitiated on this account. 16. Reliance has also been placed upon Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujrat - (1997) 7 SCC 622. In this case sanction was held to be invalid as on the date of issue of sanction the relevant file was in the Chief Minister's off....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; its subsequent recovery and seizure as described and detailed in the panchnama dated 9-10-1991 was what was relevant and was duly put up before the sanctioning authority. The sanction suffers from no infirmity. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this court to para 31 and para 37 of the impugned judgment of ACMM dated 1-5-2001. Para 31 inter alia reads as follows: "31. It is correct that Ld. M.M. Sh. A.K. Garg has not verified the panchnama of 10-10-91. He has only verified the panchnama of 9-10-91. In my view there is no harm in it because the case property was recovered vide panchnama dated 9-10-91. On 10-10-91 it has been reopened and resealed after displaying it to the T.V. Camera Team. The things are crystal clear if we carefully go through both the punchnma's. It is also correct that colour of vansalies found to be changed from blue to black and vansalies and other adhesive tape have been destroyed without permission of the court. Certainly there is no explanation as to how the colour of vansalies have been changed and as to why the vansalies and adhesive tapes were destroyed without permission of this Court during the pendency of this....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0 tolas have been recovered." 21. It is argued that the Trial Judge himself was in a quandary and was uncertain as to whether in the given circumstances the conviction of the petitioner could be sustained or not. It was in these circumstances that he had directed the Commissioner of Customs to hold an enquiry as to how and in what circumstances the case property had been allowed to be covered on a T.V. footage especially when it was a serious case in which recovery of 360 gold biscuits was involved. It is submitted that this enquiry was yet pending. The judgment could not have followed till the enquiry was completed. The valuable rights of the petitioner has been infringed under Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution and he has been disentitled to a fair trial. This is the second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 22. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment reported in Kothari Filaments v. Commissioner of Cus. (PORT). Kolkata - 2009 (233) E.L.T. 289 (S.C.) = 2009 (13) S.T.R. 225 (S.C.) as also Pooja Batra v. Union of India & Ors. - 2009 (237) E.L.T. 17 (S.C.) = 2009 IV AD (S.C.) 685 to support this argument. First judgment relied....