TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 30
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment of one year each and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- each, in default, to undergo six months Rigorous Imprisonment and also convicted the respondent in Crl. A. (MD) No. 59 of 2009 for the offence under Section 135(1)(a)(ii) r/w 135A of the Customs Act and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default, to undergo six months Rigorous Imprisonment. 2. Aggrieved by the same, the Respondents 1 to 3 in Crl. A. (MD) No. 58 of 2009 preferred appeals before the Honourable Supreme Court of India. The Honourable Supreme Court of India vide Judgment dated 29-10-2021 set aside the common Judgment passed by this Court and remanded the matter back to this Court for fresh disposal. While remanding the matter, the Honourable Supreme Court of India also observed that "all the questions of law and fact would remain open before the High Court and the parties would be free to address the High Court on all issues both on law and facts". 3. The case of the prosecution is that on secret information, the Anti-Smuggling Wing of the Customs Department at Tuticorin, conducted a raid in a warehouse situated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ior Counsel submitted that the Trial Court acquitted the respondent on the ground that the materials objects were not produced before the Trial Court and it is a fatal to the case of the prosecution. The sanctioning authority was not examined by the prosecution, whereas the order of sanction was marked through P.W.4. In fact, the Learned Trial Judge, inspected the premises where the sandalwood was kept in the office of the appellant. The mahazars were prepared and the same were marked by the prosecution as Ex.P.3, Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.12. In the customs cases, all the materials could not be produced before the Trial Court, since it was in large quantum and as such, the mahazar alone is enough to prove that the materials were seized from the accused persons. Further, any statement made before the customs officers is admissible in evidence. During the adjudication process, the accused persons were imposed fine by the adjudicating authority. It was challenged before the Tribunal. Though it was set aside in the adjudication proceedings again on the appeal, penalty imposed as against the respondent by the Commissioner was confirmed and the same was not challenged before any Court of law by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....els appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 10. The Trial Court acquitted the respondent on the ground that no evidence was shown to prove that the respondent is Customs House Agents and they packed and kept the boxes and had an intention to attempt to export Sandal Wood, illegally, to Singapore. Admittedly, the sandalwood had arrived at Tuticorin two months before, and arrangements were made to cancel the shipping bill. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the accused had an intention to evade to pay the customs duty levied by the customs department by crossing the green gate and having escaped by wrong declaration contravening under Section 135 of the Customs Act. There are no documents on record to show that the accused forged the documents and produced the same before anybody. That apart, the prosecution failed to prove that the respondent with an intention of evading in paying customs duty under Section 135(1)(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, had attempted to export carton boxes containing prohibited sandalwood by means of forged documents thereby causing revenue loss to the customs department and contravention of Section 135A of the Customs Act.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court." (Emphasis supplied) 12. What, therefore, needs to be examined in the light of the....