N.V. Anjaria, J.

1. The present Revision Application is directed against order dated 20th July, 2005 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Valsad whereby the learned Judge dismissed application below Exhibit 15 filed by the applicant-accused. The application was under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 whereby the applicant prayed for examine additional witnesses at the appellate stage.

2. Outlining the facts of the case, the applicant pleaded giving the background inter alia that on 25th December, 1990 an unknown vessel had landed on the shores of village Sorathwaad, Near Marol which carried silver slabs. The village people, it was stated, looted the said silver slabs. The Custom Officers, Valsad went there to carry out combing operations and to recover four slabs, for which nobody claimed ownership. The Customs Officers recovered silver and some cash amount. It was stated that on 30th December, 1990 the Customs Department got information that a vessel named "Chanchal Prasad" was anchored at the shores.

2.1 The case of the applicant was that on 26th December, 1990 he had seen the village people carrying away the silver slabs from the vessel that had landed and anchored a day before. It is the case that at relevant time the petitioner informed in writing the Inspector of Customs one Shri B.D. Nanavati as well as one Shri H.H. Nai who was a Sipoy about landing of unattended vessel and the village people taking away silver slabs. In other words, the applicant claimed that he was informer to the Customs Department with regard to illegal import and landing of silver bars or silver slabs. It was his case that as per the scheme of the Customs Department, he was entitled to a reward having informed about the illegal activity. Applicant has stated that he was not given reward, for which he was constrained to approach this Court by filing Special Criminal Application No. 744 of 1991 seeking a direction against the Department of Customs to give legitimate reward to him. In the said proceedings of writ petition, the above-named two customs employees-Mr. Nanavati and Mr. Nai-had filed their respective affidavits in which they accepted that the applicant was informer and had protected the said silver bars from being looted by the village people.

2.2 It was the further case of the applicant that notwithstanding the above facts, he himself was implicated by the interested quarters. A show cause notice came to be issued to him under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 as well as two other persons, calling upon him to show cause as to why the good seized, that is 46 silver slabs, the vessel and the money in Indian currency, which was about Rs. 01,31,000/- should not be confiscated and penalty should not be imposed; penalty was imposed against the applicant. Against the said Order-In-Original, the applicant filed Appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai. The Tribunal stayed the order of penalty imposed by the Commissioner of Customs and Excise. It is the say of the applicant that the Tribunal considered the fact that the applicant was the informer and the requisite form in respect of informer's details were filled-in by the said named Inspector of Customs Mr. Nanavati and was countersigned by the said Sipoy Mr. Nai.

2.3 The applicant was tried for the offence under Section 135 under the Customs Act in the Customs Case No. 01 of 1992 decided by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, whereby the learned trial judge convicted the applicant and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default clause of further simple imprisonment of three months. Against the said judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate, the applicant preferred Criminal Appeal No. 134 of 2002 before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Valsad.

3. It was in the said proceedings of Appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, that the applicant presented the