DRI Vs. KHURSHEED ALAM AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 20.04.2010 passed by learned ACMM, New Delhi in CC No. 129/1/89 whereby the respondents were acquitted.

(2.) Prosecution case, in nut shell against the accused persons is, that accused Khursheed Alam was intercepted by the officers of DRI on 23.09.88 at Ghaziabad while he was driving the truck bearing No. UHM 1682 and the said truck was escorted by the officers and it was found to contain 99 packages containing synthetic yarn of foreign origin total weighing 3564 kgs collectively valued at Rs. 6,23,700.00 and 70 another gunny bags of Maize of Indian Origin collectively weighing 4550 kgs. valued at Rs. 7000.00. Accused Kamrul Huda was also intercepted by the officers of DRI on 23.09.88 at Ghaziabad while he was driving the truck bearing No. URD 8811 and said truck was escorted by the officers and it was found to contain 84 packages containing synthetic yarn of foreign origin total weighing 2969 kgs collectively valued at Rs. 5,19,575.00 and 58 another gunny bags of Maize of Indian Origin collectively weighing 3770 kgs. valued at Rs. 5880.00. On demand they both failed to produce any evidence for the lawful possession of the said goods and the same were seized under the reasonable belief that the same were liable to confiscation and they were knowingly concerned in fraudulent evasion of the prohibition imposed on the import of the aforesaid goods and were knowingly concerned in carrying, keeping and dealing with the above said goods which they knew or had reasons to believe the same were liable to confiscation under Sec. 111 of the Customs Act, 1962.

(3.) After the conclusion of enquiries, complaint for offence punishable under Sec. 139 of the Customs Act, 1962 was filed agsinst the respondents, pre-charge evidence was led, charges were framed thereafter evidence was led. Statements of the respondents were recorded under Sec. 313 Crimial P.C. The respondents, however, did not prefer to lead any defence evidence. The learned Trial Court acquitted the respondents primarily on two grounds :