DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE Vs. PAWAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Revision Petition the petitioner has assailed order dated 1st June, 2010, whereby learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) discharged the accused.

(2.) The order of learned ACMM makes interesting reading. The ACMM observed as under:

(3.) I also find that the learned ACMM considered that the only evidence available with the prosecution was a retracted statement made under Section 108 of Customs Act. A perusal of record would show that retracted statement under Section 108 of Customs Act was only one piece of evidence and apart from that, there was entire sequence of circumstantial evidence of the departmental witnesses in support of the prosecution case. The complaint itself shows the role of different officers of customs and how the goods were illegally being exported. The learned ACMM, however, observed: "Now, coming to this case it appears to be rightly submitted on behalf of accused persons that there is no prima facie case for conviction existing against either of the accused. Except the retracted statement of accused persons recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, there is no material brought on record against either of the accused. There is even no investigation on the point how the goods were allegedly exported. Who were the officers posted at the Customs Port at the relevant time when the goods were exported. How the goods were cleared by the Customs Officers. Those officers were very important clue about the circumstances under which the goods were actually exported. Their evidence could have been easily available to the prosecution during investigations as well as during prosecution of this case. However, no attempt was made to investigate this aspect. This fact raises an adverse inference against the prosecution as required under Section 114(g) of Indian Evidence Act."