The judgment reaffirms the importance of a valid sanction under Section 137 of the Customs Act and the need for inculpatory evidence to establish the accused's involvement in the offence.

This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.II, Egmore, Chennai dated 05.09.2007 in E.O.C.C.No.342 of 2005. The respondent/accused stood charged for the offence under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act,1962. The trial Court, after trial, acquitted the accused from all the charges framed against him. Challenging the same, the present criminal appeal has been filed by the complainant.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:-

The respondent/accused imported tin bend circle waste in 3 containers from Malaysia through a known contact. Based on the documents received by him through Bank, he engaged a Customs clearing agent to file a Bill of Entry No.497999 dated 09.06.2003 for importing of 60.54 Metric Tonnes of Tin bend circle waste. Subsequently, the Department of Revenue Intelligence wants to examine the import consignment, the respondent/accused authorised one Muralidharan, the Customs clearing agent and he was present at the time of examination. In his present a detailed examination of the import consignment was conducted on 12.06.2003, and during the examination undeclared cargo in the form of steel sheets and slit coils were found concealed at the bottom of the container covered by the declared cargo. Apart from that the total weight of the imported consignment was found to be 82.85 metric tonnes as against the declared total quantity of 60.54 metric tonnes. On segregation of the declared and undeclared consignment, the declared cargo was found to be only 4.2 metric tonnes, which was also informed to the accused that the cargo will be cleared only after the opinion received from the National Metallurgical Laboratory[NML] and then the Customs clearing agent, three sheets of samples from undeclared cargo was handed over to the National Metallurgical Laboratory authorities for the purpose of testing. P.W.4, the Technical Officer, NML, Tharamani tested the samples and given a report Ex.P6. Since the respondent/accused has deliberately concealed MS/GI sheets and stainless steel slit in coils underneath tin bend circle waste and that the said importer had mis-declared the import cargo with an intention to evade customs duty which is punishable under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of Customs Act, the complaint has filed against the respondent/accused.

3. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges as mentioned in paragraph one of the judgment and the accused denied the same. In order to prove its case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 4 witnesses were examined and 6 documents were exhibited.

4. Out of the witnesses examined, P.W.1 was working as Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. According to him, he initiated the investigation of the import of consignment by the respondent/accused and he enquired the respondent/accused on 13.06.2003. Then, he recorded the statements of the accused in Exs.P1 and P2 on 26.03.2003. P.W.2 is working as Intelligence Officer, D.R.I. Chennai. According to him, on 11.06.2003, he along with other D.R.I Officers on a specific information that the respondent/accused attempt to smuggle M.S. Sheets/Coils and Stainless steels/Coils in the guise of tin bend circle waste in three containers and the above three containers were called and the customs seal in all the containers were found intact, and it was weighed separately, all the three containers were found to contain M.S. Sheets and Coils at the bottom of the container covered on top with tin bend circle waste. Hence, the said import consignment was detained under the Customs Act and resealed the same were handed over to CFS authorities for safe custody. He prepared observation mahazar Ex.P4. P.W.3 is working as Intelligence Officer, D.R.I, Chennai. According to him, he examined the consignment and after found the consignment was under declared to the extent of 22.315 Metric Tones. Sub