ASST COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS Vs. RAMANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the judgment of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai acquitting the respondents/accused under Sec.135(1)(b)(1) of the Customs Act, the State has brought forth this appeal.

(2.) The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus: On 27.1.1984 at 5.00 P.M., the first accused on the instruction of A-2 from Room No.6 Danam Lodge at Thanjavur sent two Ambassador Cars bearing Registration No.TNP 1091 and MSV 7943 to Meemisal, the seacoast, with his men A-3, A-4, A-5 and A-6 in the Car No.TNP 1091 and A-7 in the Car No.MSV 7943. A-1 instructed A-3 to A-7 to meet A-2 at Meemisal and after loading the smuggled goods in the cars to proceed to Trichy via Aranthangi, Pudukottai. The cars reached the seacoast at 7.P.M. After loading the smuggled goods the said cars proceeded to Trichy via Aranthangi, Pudukottai. In the car No.TNP 1091 A-4 and A-6 and in the car No.MSV 7943 A-7 and one Sekar alone travelled. A-3 and A-7 did not travel in the cars. P.W.1 Subramanian, the then Inspector attached to Customs Preventive Unit at Thanjavur, on information with his team went to Sathankudy near the Kulavai Pattu Cross Road situated at Aranthangi-Pudukottai Road and started searching the vehicles. At about midnight 12'O Clock on 27.1.1984, the car bearing No.TNP 1091 proceeding towards Pudukottai came near the place. The Officers tried to stop the car, but the same was not stopped by the accused. When the officials fired at the Car, it was stopped and the accused ran away from the car. They tried to stop another car bearing No.MSV 7943 on the same way, but it was not stopped. So, the officials fired at the car, and it was stopped. The accused who were in the car, ran away from the place. The officials searched the cars and found 6 cassette recorders and 2 tape recorders and foreign textiles. A mahazar was drawn in the presence of P.W.7 Rajendran, Revenue Officer in-charge of the check post and one Krishnan, a tea stall owner at Cross Road, Kulavaipattu. The said mahazar is marked as Ex.P1. The Officers also noted the bloodstains on the front seat and front door of the left side of the Car No.TNP 1091. With regard to the measurement of the textiles, a mahazar was drawn on 28.1.1984 at about 12.00 P.M. in front of the two independent witnesses, and the same is marked as Ex.P2. Both the seized goods and the seized cars were kept inside the compound wall of the Office premises at Arulananda Nagar, Thanjavur. On 28.1.1984 at about 11.00 P.M. a driver by name Chandrasekar informed P.W.1 that A-1 and A-2 along with number of persons came to the Office premises and damaged the jeep and caused injury to Sepoy Krishnamoorthy, and they took the cars as well as the smuggled goods. P.W.1 after visiting the Office gave a complaint to the South Police Station, Thanjavur under Ex.P9, and a case was registered. On receipt of information, P.W.1 along with his Superintendent went to the Thanjavur Medical College Hospital, where A-3 was taking treatment for pellet injury. A-3 gave a statement, and the same was recorded under Ex.P3 in front of the witnesses. Since A-3 was inpatient and taking treatment, he was not arrested. In Ex.P3 statement, A-3 has revealed the involvement of the other persons. A-1, A-2, A-4 and A-5 were arrested and remanded to judicial custody in the dacoity case. The statement of A-1 was recorded on 27.2.1984 in front of the Jailer and two independent witnesses under Ex.P4. On 28.2.84 A-2 and A-5 gave their statements voluntarily. Ex.P5 is the statement of A-2. Ex.P6 is the statement given by Radhakrishnan. On completion of the investigation and obtaining permission under Ex.P7, P.W.1 filed a complaint.

(3.) In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 7 witnesses and marked 9 exhibits. No material objects were marked. After the evidence of the prosecution was over, the accused were questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, and they flatly denied the same as false. No defence witness was examined. On hearing the submissions by both sides and consideration of the materials available, the trial Court found the respondent/accused not guilty and acquitted them of the charge levelled against them. Aggrieved State has filed this appeal.