The prosecution must prove confessions are voluntary; acquittal upheld if sufficient doubt exists regarding evidence and guilt.

JUDGEMENT

This appeal has been filed challenging the Judgement of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai dated 27.11.2017 in C.C.No.6 of 2017.

2. The appellant is the complainant who has filed this appeal challenging the Judgement of acquittal rendered by the trial Court. The respondent is the sole accused.

3. The case of the appellant / complainant as per records is as follows.

3.1. On information, the Customs Officer attached to the Customs Preventive Unit, Rameshwaram had effected seizure of 3 pieces of gold rods weighing 1002.600 gms valued at Rs.27,39,103/- on 28.12.2014 which were kept buried in a hut near Dhanushkodi seashore bridge, Rameshwaram. On believing that gold rods were smuggled illegally from Srilanka and were kept concealed for local sale, a case was registered in O.R.No.3/14-15 for taking further action. As the hut belonged to the accused and the recovery was made in the hut, the accused was enquired and he gave a voluntary statement on 29.12.2014 admitting the smuggling of 3 gold rods which were already seized. The purity of the seized gold rods has been ascertained and certified by a Government approved appraiser as 24 carat gold. The seized gold rods and the packing materials were deposited in the godown of CPU, Madurai. The vehicle (vallam) bearing Registration No.TN11/WV/1314 used for transporting the smuggled gold from the second islet Rameshwaram to seashore bridge, Dhanushkodi, Rameshwaram was seized on 25.03.2015.

3.2. The residence of the accused was searched on 29.12.2014 by the Customs Officer and no incriminating documents or things were recovered from there. The accused was arrested on 30.12.2014 and produced before the Court on 31.12.2014. Based on the investigation, a show cause notice was issued to the accused on 27.05.2015. After adopting due process, the adjudicating authority passed an order of confiscation of seized materials from the accused vide order in No. 5/2015-2016 dated 30.12.2015. After getting pre-trial disposal order from the Court and permission from the Commissioner of Customs, Trichy, the Assistant Commissioner, Rameshwaram had issued a disposal certificate for disposal of seized 3 pieces of gold rods weighing 1002.600 gms and accordingly, they were deposited with Customs Office, Chennai by Deposit Memo dated 08.01.2016. By doing the acts of omission and commission in concealing the above contraband with an intention to evade payment of duty by illegal import of the goods in contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'], the accused is liable to be punished under Sections 135 (1)(a) of 135(1)(b) of the Act.

3.3. After taking cognizance of the complaint, the trial Court framed charges under Sections 135 (1)(a) and 135(1)(b) of the Act against the accused. When the accused was questioned, he denied his involvement and claimed to be tried.

3.4. Before the Trial Court, on the side of the prosecution PW1 to PW4 have been examined and Exs.P1 to P15 have been marked. On the side of the accused, no oral or documentary evidence has been marked.

3.5. After the conclusion of trial, the learned trial Judge concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused and found him not guilty and acquitted him. Aggrieved over that, the appellant / complainant has preferred this appeal.

4. Mr.C.Arul Vadivel @ Sekar, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant submitted that as per the details shown in the Arrest Memo, the respondent / accused has been arrested only on 30.12.2014; the statement of the respondent was obtained on 29.12.2014