SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(Kar) 557

Karnataka High Court
Judges : M.P.Chinnappa
ASSTT.COLLECTOR OF CUS.(PREV.) - Appellant
Versus
P.M.ABDUL RAHAMAN - Respondent
Crl A. 544 Of 1995
Decided On : 09/13/2000

The prosecution must establish the seizure of articles and ownership of the property. Marking of sanction for prosecution under relevant sections is mandatory.

Headnote:

The prosecution failed to establish the seizure of the gold pellets and the ownership of the property where the gold was found. The court found that the appellant did not secure respectable witnesses to support their case and did not mark the sanction obtained to prosecute the respondents under Section 135 of the Gold Customs Act. The court upheld the acquittal of the respondents.

Fact of the Case:

The respondents were prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 85(1) of the Gold (Control) Act and Section 135 of Gold Customs Act based on the seizure of foreign-origin gold pellets. The prosecution failed to prove the charges, and the respondents were acquitted.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the seizure of the articles and the ownership of the property where the gold was found. The court upheld the acquittal of the respondents.

Issues: Failure to establish seizure of the articles, ownership of the property, and lack of marked sanction for prosecution under Section 135 of the Gold Customs Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The prosecution must establish the seizure of articles and ownership of the property. Marking of sanction for prosecution under relevant sections is mandatory.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal of the respondents was upheld. The respondents' bail bonds were cancelled.

M. P. CHINNAPPA, J.

( 1 ) RESPONDENTS 1 to 3 were prosecuted by the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 85 (1) of the Gold (Control) Act and Section 135 of Gold Customs Act (sic) on the allegation that on 2-6-1988 on the information furnished by R-3, P. Ws. 1 and 4 accompanied by other officers went to the house where R-l was residing and questioned him regarding gold pellets. R-l showed the place from which P. Ws. 1,4 and other witnesses recovered 198 gold pellets weighing 23. 87 kgs. of foreign origin. On the basis of it, charge sheet was filed against the respondents. However, the respondents denied the charges levelled against them and claimed to be tried. To substantiate the case, the prosecution has examined P. Ws. 1 to 8. M. Os. 1 and 2 and Exs. P-l to P-6 (c) were got marked.

( 2 ) P. Ws. 1 and 4 speak about the information being furnished by R-3 and also going to the spot where R-l and 2 were residing on that particular day and also about the seizure of gold of foreign origin. P. W. 2 recorded the statement of R-l as per Ex. P-4. P. W. 3 is the Inspector of Customs. P. Ws. 5 and 6 are the panch witnesses who turned hostile when they were examined before Court they did not support the prosecution case. P. Ws. 7 and 8 are the goldsmiths who certify that the gold seized from the custody of these accused persons is of foreign origin and they have supported only to that extent. The learned I Addl. Civil Judge and C. J. M. , Bangalore, who had tried these respondents in C. C. No. 26/90 by his Judgment dated : 9-7-1993 acquitted all the respondents on the ground that charges were not proved against them. Being aggrieved by that order, this appeal is filed.

( 3 ) HEARD the learned S. P. P. for the appellant and Sr. S. S. Hiremath for Sr. Kiran S. Javali the learned Counsel for the respondents.

( 4 ) WHEN this appeal was pending. R-2 Moideen Kunhi died and therefore, the appeal as against him stands abated. Therefore, only respondents 1 and 3 are available for disposal of the appeal. The learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the respondents on the ground that the prosecution has failed to establish the seizure of the articles. As stated above, P. Ws. 5 and 6 who are independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. The learned S. P. P. has sought to make out a ground that they have supported the prosecution case partly on the ground that P. W. 5 had admitted that the Inspector had shown him one pellet of gold. P. W. 6 has stated that the inspector had showed 198 pellets of gold but the fact remains that they have also stated that their signatures were obtained in the office of the Superintendent of Customs and they were not aware of the contents of Ex. P-1, the mahazar under which the gold is said to have been seized. Therefore, the evidence of P. Ws. 5 and 6 who are the independent witnesses is not available for the prosecution. It is no doubt true that the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 4 and other witnesses who are connected with the Customs Department can be accepted if their evidence is otherwise believable. In view of this, it is now necessary to find out as to whether the appellant has established the case against the respondent. According to the case made out by the appellant, the respondent No. 3 informed the Customs Officers regarding the gold pellets being hidden by A-l in the premises. They came all the way from Coondapur to the house where appellants 1 and 2 were residing. They never recorded any statement at that time nor did they collect any respectable panch witnesses. On the other hand, they collected P. Ws. 5 and 6 from the spot and they have not supported the prosecution case. In view of this, the learned S. P. P. submitted that they hail from the same village and therefore, they did not support the case. If that was the case, nothing prevented the Customs Officer to secure more respectable persons to be present at the time of preparing the panchanama. Therefore, it is not now




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top