Asst Commr Of Customs And Central Excise vs Imtiaz Hussain S/O Farooq Hussain on 29 March, 2011

[Cites 3, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Asst Commr Of Customs And Central Excise vs Imtiaz Hussain S/O Farooq Hussain on 29 March, 2011

Bench: V.Jagannathan

IN THE HIGH COURT 012' ;<[ARNATA1<:A-«.T
CIRCUIT BENCEL DHARAWAD   
Dated the 29:}: day of March 20$:  * 
:BEFQR§: @: _
HONBLE MRJU srzca  :\g:ﬁ:;_**;v';};;;a,.;v;AVLL%" ' X
CRHVHNALAPPEZAL N§;,:';3_:_{8  = " 
BETWEEN: 'V  A"  

Assistant Cemmissioner of 

Customs {in Central .E:;:.;:ise;  . _' V 

No.71, Club Road, B€Eg'a1.;f:1 --?{._SV9O*.(;}f} 
     ' mﬁxppsllant

( By  S.C3__.Bhééméfeiﬁdigfgdﬁrocate. )
AND: "  

EmuiaguHTus;~s,am~:.;;:y:Va;9:»;,_" "
S/Q F'aroC£q= Tr}¥j.1sSV'§:1i13, 

No . 4  P --A'r:}u" ?5'§1..$éVar'fr:_Q%:--., '
Nawa§?a1:h-- Co}Qnj:._,  
0 R  _ " _ " . ' % 
£mt_ia2: Hussairi, 

S K ':2: Fajmoq Hm-s.svai::.)

" V'  - AH'.V%N;a.,1,''z»6,''%'Khahfa'':i/:oha::a,

' _}&b_:; Ei_Q1i3s:;"'B_hatka1§

...R€sp<:md€nf:

( By Sri PA/',Gu::§aE, Advecate. )

AA  Criminal Appsai filed Liﬂdﬁl' Secéion 3778 0f the

   praying :@ 33:: a$ide 'aha QEf§€T gagssg' by {E16 1%
 1. _;;«x§d%¢ {mg {Sr".§n§}  £.§;.;:;;§ Beigaum? 1:: ::'<:12m¢

E885jE989' éazéd i.4?%.2{}é33¢ .:a::<:;:.:§%:::§§:g {E352 r€sp<:>%:;d€:r:{--



accused for the offences punishable u11derVV.S:.e'CeE§Qn$
135(1](b){é) of the Customs Act, 1952 and u;:.d¢:t:$§etg:":.m
85(i){a) efthe Goid comm: Act, 2968.  " "  A'

This appeal coming on {er 1r_1He'a-%:injg'1'th.i_S'.g£.a:g%;_the

eeurt delivered the following :

Ja_wmU D  "   
This appeal is  the ejo:rr:;:._3'tai1¢>;ant befere the trial
eeurt and the challenge Lite»  ef acquittal
passed by :vhe««j:.t}ia1 aeeﬁa-i,_t--:.iVﬁ§f'the respondent of

the 'Sections }35{1)(b)(i) of the "E Section 85(i)(a) of the 2.5:' The eaaexof the prosecution in short is that, on aeeused was feund traveliing in Iuxuty I ZRM4896 from Bombay te Barzgaiere a.f':d 0.3': apprehended near E{.Cz;N. Gffiee, ?.BtRea&, .ABTe}ga'ar':1t by the efficiais ef the Central Excise " 'E3'ref:%er2tive Branch? it was fauna that the accused was "--3:38.§"Z'"}~"§}'}g EEG geéd peléeta weighing 5,832 grams valued at Rs; E8,3Et{}€L}{}/--. it wag ajae faaaa that the aeeaeed ( \ 1 E' M) had he permit or licence to carry the geide-'pellets. Therefore, on the basis of the eemplaiht ieetgea-:h};'t.he complainant, a case was registered and the.1"h$:Aestig;at{eh'»' ted to fiting of the Charge sheet"agai:1st 'ferhj the ateremehtiehed effehees

3. At the trial, fe11owvirt'§§~.t'he_VVaeeusedvf pieadihg guilty, en behalf thteev witnesses were examined. Si>;tjyi' marked apart from two r1:'a'tegj1€-at oibjeetsg. statement was reeordediahcftehhe'aectLI--é'e<i' 'ed rive evidehee in his defence

4. ieatehedefttdge, after appreciating the evideneet'__er:V the light of the arguments adézfaheed, that the proseeutien ease suffered from ,' 'severaEA«d_e"fe._ets or infirmities and taking note of the said seizure cf the geid pellets being not es'tab.%__1'she'"'d as the pattehas also did not support the _ t§t0se'etitiet: ease, an order ef aequittat was passed Vfiiéu E have heard the Zeathett eeuhsel fez' the appeliaht and the teartiea etmhsei fer the tespentieet atztt pertiseé the records Qf this case and the reasons the trial Court.

6. The tria} eeurt has fourzsfehe' *fQ1'§,,Q'»xri€'~§ ':iV€f\€'e'ts 3n the pmsecutien ease' First of aE._L'"i:he triaglAee'urt'=f<5'L::idL that the search and seizvufe» wasw gfiuts accordance with Seeztiens of i}1e..C.L{st0ms Act masmueh as indepe:2aen{.--.xyhe are also the inhabitants 0fTV.tv}'1e examined and seizure to have been signed_ the said witnesses RY€I7€:'-.f10'§ eTA:<AV:VVa:.'1%;:ilI:_:e'd the court Therefore, the trial Court of 50 geld pellets from the possession c')"f.. fghis at eused.

A '?_y ':T.Ahe4%{1«evXw: defect noticed by the trial court was that ._:i9é_e .sa::"<;.:;o:i:v:'i'g authority gave the sanction erder as per ES<':=.P--i2 .. 'Beat the said éetier was issued witheut acmaiéy "A"r.h_e sanezienineg authority' going through the materiai "'v.§%iaeed and in this eomneetienf the {ma} eeurt feanei frsm "Size evidence 03: :"ee<>§<§ {hat 126116 sf she deeameﬁés 17:2,. seizure a:saE":a2:a:1 szaiemené ef the aeezgseé azzei Eifﬁéet §?"*'j,a ,\~»/" , >5/--*"' <1 Certificate had no signature or seal of the Collector of Customs nor wee there any endorsement erythese deeumems :0 Sl'1OW that the sanctioning au{§'ie:*iij,ij."l1A'as gene threugh 'these materials l3ef0re.tl:el"» sanctlen letter as per E1x.P--l.

8. The next defect notie'ed__ by flzellltrial :eé$iV;;r:__wa:?s fllatfi the Provisions of Section ﬁvhell jf'lVl'1ich are applicable in ._C::>nducted under the Cr.P.C. Carmel: case and the lvlirlt at B0mba}"

prim" tefilietlag'c}:€,,Vthe_.::'Qff1p'lai;1t the certificates were also iagsued V1i:i:2'eh"pTri'e1f"€e 'the complaint and, therefore? the trlaﬂceufi' the Vl€Vv' that the procedure co..n§l§evmp1ate{i"h.av$ net been followed. eeurt also found delay in ebtaining the sa:fle%:ie~s: and there wag also clelay in filing the xeemelaﬁlnt and the said delays are not preperly explained ' emﬁleven the mehazar mmeee ie the see? mahazer anti _..sei:z:_;:'e mahazar were 110': examieeol befere 'glee Calif? and le.$:l}/g {he Scribe (>1? §;f:>s:.P--8 wee alzse examined in (3 respect of the voiuniary statement of the aeeused_.._s__a1'& to have been recorded under' Seetien 108 of the':VC:i's::ems Act.

10. in the light of the aforeségd i1efieeC:if-ei§1'*Aih«e prosecution ease, the 1ear.1'1e._<_:_¥juefgeg":rhe1'eeVfCéje./<__}:eQ§k View that the accused is €ff1{':i:'E3€»C1:.VViCO be 9AT_:e;uiti:ed of the offence with which he '«:h£;;_:'geC}_LL' . 1 E, In the {lee teken by the trial Court, in order of acquittal is ehown that the finding recorc'fe.::i" is totaﬂy perverse er unreasoneiiﬁev; Sirzee. me such eecasien has arisen in the ineeliégnit'-eV.case, theVV"'e'fﬂer of acquittai is not Eiabie {Q be °ghmﬁa¢¢mﬁhbyensumm¢nagxaL ' Ezjeeze 'E2.' ' 'The tfaeippeeh therefore; is dismiseed 5:213/m

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court