AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 315
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... about 9.00 a.m. After collecting their registered baggage, they proceeded through Green Channel. On suspicion, they were intercepted near the exit gate. On examination of the baggage of the 1st respondent three cartons each containing 5.5 kgs. of white power with label "OMO stain remover powder" were found. The baggage of the 2nd respondent contained two such cartons. The said articles were found in the chemical examination to be 'Dexamethasone'. Since the respondents did not declare import of the said articles and attempted to evade customs duty, they have committed the offences under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act. 4. After recording evidence under Section 244 of the Code, a charge for the offence punishable under Section 135 (1) (ii) of the Customs Act was framed. The respondents denied the accusation. The prosecution has examined PWs. 1 to 8 and proved Exts. P1 to P17. During examination under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code, the respondents denied the incriminating circumstances appeared against them in evidence. They maintained that there was no suppression, misinformation or attempt to evade duty. The 1st respondent gave evidence as DW-1. The trial court, af....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e authorities were confused as to whether that was a dutiable item or a prohibited article. Only on account of that doubt the customs officers retained the articles, and ultimately initiated the prosecution without any bona fides. The respondents arrived in the Airport at 9.00 a.m. Ext. P1 mahazar was prepared only at 6.00 p.m. The learned counsel would submit that if the respondents tried to pass through the Green Channel the articles in their possession should have been seized and a mahazar prepared immediately. The learned counsel for the respondents would further submit that when an attempt to pass through Green Channel with an undeclared dutiable article is illegal, the delay in preparing the mahazar stands testimony to the mala fides on the part of the officials. 9. This is an appeal against acquittal. The learned counsel for the respondents would urge that the view taken by the trial court shall not be interfered unless it is perverse or against law. In this regard the decisions of the Apex Court in Bannareddy and others v. State of Karnataka and others [(2018) 5 SCC 790] and Mallappa v. State of Karnataka [(2024) SCC OnLine SC 130] are placed reliance on. 10. The rule gov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a contrary view is permissible, particularly, where the view taken by the trial court is a plausible view based on proper appreciation of evidence and is not vitiated by ignorance/misreading of relevant evidence on record. 13. The said view was reiterated in Bannareddy (supra). The parameters concerning powers of the Appellate court while dealing with appeals against acquittal were summarised by the Apex Court in Mallappa (supra), which reads as follows: (i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive - inclusive of all evidence, oral or documentary; (ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge; (iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed; (iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal; (v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n illegally. He stated in detail in the chief examination admitting that such an article was brought by enclosing in the baggage of himself and the 2nd respondent. In the cross-examination he stated as follows:- "Ext. P7 statement is written by me. Ext. P1 seizure mahazar contains 8 pages. All pages containing my signature. There have total 5 cartons. All contained Dexamethasone. I brought the goods to Calicut through my personal baggage. When I was produced before the Magistrate I did not make any complaint. Ext. P4 cartons gate pass, 2 Nos., bear my signature and also my brother's signature. In Ext. P4 the value of the dutiable goods imported is not mentioned. That does not show that I went through the green channel. It is not correct that we are not eligible to bring those item as personal baggage. In my retraction statement the market value of the goods is not stated. I am not lying before this court." 17. From the said version, the case of the prosecution that the articles in the possession of the respondents was Dexamethasone and it was seized on preparing Ext. P1 mahazar stands admitted. In the customs gate pass, possession of such materials with the respondents was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r two aspects of the matter would make the statement worthless altogether. Of course, those statements were retracted by the respondents. But when DW-1 deposed before the court admitting import of the article in question, the relevancy of the said statements is only concerning whether or not the respondents made a declaration about the contents of the articles they brought. 21. Either in Exts. P7 and 8 or in the retraction statement of DW-1, it was stated that the white powder they brought was Dexamethasone and despite such declaration the prosecution was initiated. Ext. P17 is the order in the adjudication proceedings in the matter. The defence set up by the respondents before the Adjudicating Officer (Additional Commissioner of Customs) has been recited in detail in Ext. P17. The respondents have no case that any contention beyond what has been recited in Ext. P17 were raised before the Adjudicating Officer. In that also no such contention was raised. In the light of the said evidence and circumstances, the assertion by DW-1 first time before the court that he declared the article to be Dexamethasone cannot be believed. When the said version is against the oral testimony of PW-1....