AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 31
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onvicted the Respondents 1 to 5 in Crl. A (MD) No. 58 of 2009 for the offence under Section 135(1)(a)(ii) r/w Section 135A of the Customs Act 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 Section 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 preferred appeals before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, vide Judgment dated 29-10-2021 set aside the common judgment passed by this Court and remanded the matters back to this Court for fresh disposal. While remanding the matter, the Hon'ble 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. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the Learned Counse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ferred an appeal in C.A. No. 58 of 2009 on the file of this Court. 8. The Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that while allowing the appeals, this Court correctly held that the prosecution proved its case beyond any doubt as against the respondents. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India set aside the order only on the ground that this Court passed a common Judgment against two appeals preferred by the appellant against two separate order of acquittal by two separate trials. Further, the Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Trial Court acquitted the respondents on the ground that the material 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.2. 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.2, Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.10. In the customs cases, all the materials could not be produced before the Trial Court, since it was in large quantum and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....duced before the Trial Court in order to prove its case. Further, he submitted that the prosecution also failed to prove that the materials which were allegedly seized from the accused are sandalwood. The said fact was categorically admitted by P.W.2 and as such, the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond any doubt and the Trial Court rightly acquitted the respondents. In order to substantiate his contentions, he relied upon the following judgments :- "(i) Chinnam Kameswara Rao and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2013) 12 SCC 689; (ii) Chandrappa and Others v. State of Karnataka reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415; (iii) Animireddy Venkata Ramana and Others v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2008) 5 SCC 368." Hence, he prayed for acquittal of the respondents. 10. Heard the Learned Counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 11. The Trial Court acquitted the respondents on the ground that no evidence was shown to prove that the respondents are Customs House Agents and they packed and kept the boxes and had an intention to attempt to export Sandal Wood,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2013) 12 SCC 689, wherein it is held as follows :- "12. A recent decision of this Court in Murugesan & Ors. v. State, 2012 (10) SCALE 378 is a timely reminder of the principles that were succinctly enunciated in an earlier decision of this Court in Chandrappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415, in the following words : "21..... "42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge : (1) An appellate court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glarin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate Court while entertaining an appeal from a judgment of acquittal would not ordinarily interfere therewith, if two views are possible. In the case of acquittal, there is a 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. Further, 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. 17. In my view, in the case on hand, the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond any doubt for the reasons stated supra. Therefore, there is absolutely no ground to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court as against the Respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5 and the criminal appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ============= Document 1 தா....