ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS Vs. JAYRAM RAMJI MANGELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Assistant Collector of Customs, Valsad, the appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [herein after referred to as the 'Code' for short], challenging the order of acquittal dated 31 -3 -1992 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Valsad at Navsari, in criminal Appeal No. 13 of 1991, quashing and setting aside the order of conviction and sentence dated 16 -5 -1991 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Valsad in Criminal Case No. 1 of 1987 and acquitting the accused/present respondent of the charge of commission of offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 and under Section 85 of the Gold Control Act, 1968. This Court (Coram: N.J. Pandya, J.) granted leave and admitted the appeal vide order dated 29 -7 -1993. Heard learned counsels for the parties. The facts in brief leading to filing of this appeal deserve to be set out as under:

(2.) THE accused challenged the impugned order of conviction dated 16 -5 -1991 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 1 of 1987 before Sessions Court at Valsad by preferring Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 1991. The appellate court after elaborate discussions passed an order dated 31 -3 -1992 quashing and setting aside the order of the trial Court and acquitted the accused which is impugned in the present appeal under Section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code."

(3.) MS . Sagar further submitted that, in addition to the aforesaid submission, the records & proceedings also go to show that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond doubt against the present respondent/original accused No. 2 also. The person who has taken down the statement under Section 106 of the Customs Act had not been examined, therefore said statement cannot be understood to have been proved voluntarily and or having any effect against the accused. Against this backdrop present appeal deserves to be dismissed.