STATE OF ASSAM ON THE COMPLAINT OF THE ASSTT. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. GOPI KISHAN TAPERIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) STATE is the Appellant before us challenging an order of acquittal by which a charge Under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short the Act) was held as not proved against the Respondent beyond all unsellable doubt. Prosecution being for a socio -economic offence who cannot overlook that acquittal in such cases have to be carefully scrutinised. The merits of the grievance of the Appellant requires careful, but judicious consideration. Because, we must consider that although such offences eat into the vitals of national economy an innocent person is not convicted and also remember the settled law that an acquittal does not weaken the presumption of innocence.

(2.) PROSECUTION was launched against the Respondent on complaint made by Assistant Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Tezpur, Under Section, 135 of the Act wherein it was stated that on 8.7.76 the Customs Preventive Officers of Tezpur along with local officers of North Lakhiropur having made a search of the premises occupied by Respondent recovered therefrom foreign made wrist watches (altogether 44 in numbers) and also one Yashika camera and two cassettes tape recorders, both of Japanese origin. Respondent having failed to produce documentary evidence as to wherefrom he received the laid goods or even about the source thereof departmental proceeding under the Act was started against him in the course of which the seized particles were confiscated Under Section 111 of the Act and a penalty of Rs. 2,000/ - was also imposed on him Under Section 112. Considering, however, the gravity of the offence the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Shillong, who was the competent authority to accord sanction, had accorded sanction in terms of Section 137 of the Act for Respondent's prosecution Under Section 135 of the Act. On this complaint learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakbimpur, framed charge against the Respondent Under Section 135(1)(b)(ii) of the Act for "Illegally possessing" be and foreign made writ watcher tape recorder and camera. Respondent pleaded not guilty to the charge whereupon trial proceeded.

(3.) ON a discussion of the prosecution evidence trial court found that the real owner of the house was Khagen Das who was an employee of the Central Excise Deptt. Respondent took one room on rent from him on the first floor of his building. The best person to identify the room taken on rent by the Respondent was the owner himself who was present at North Lakhitapur on the date of the search. None of the witnesses visited the place on any prior occasion and the prosecution having failed to explain why Khagen Das could not be examined as he was a material witness in the case it bad failed to establish the identity of the room occupied by Respondent and therefore possession of the seized goods could not be attributed to Respondent even though official witnesses deposed that the contraband goods were recovered from his possession.