LexASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALICUT versus V.P. SAYED MOHAMMED
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
...... . - ATSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALICUT v. V.P. SAYED MOHAMMED January 12, 1983 !E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND R.B. MISRA, JJ.J 225 • Evidence-Btnefit of doubt to accused-Doubt must be reasonable, real and G substantial arising out of entire evidence • The respondent was charged under s. 135 (b) of the Customs Act," 1962 read with s. 85 (ii) of the Gold (Control) Act, l 968. The caso against him was supported inter alia .by the oral evidence of the Inspector who had seized 28 gold bars from him at a railway station, the ticket collector on duty at the time of seizure and the goldsmith· who had certified the purity and weight of the gold bars seized. The goldsmith had depused that he could by experience assess the purity of gold by rubbing it on a touch·stone. The documentary evidence included a statement mad~ by the respondent before the Customs Superintendent admitting that the gold bars had been seize~ from him and that the same bad not been legally imported. That the respondent had made this statement of admission bad been affirmed by the Inspector in his deposition. In his examination under s. 342 Cr. P.C., when the r~spondent was asked what he had to say regarding the deposition of the Inspector. he stated: It is true that gold was recovered from my box. It was not mine. It was handed over to me by the person called Mamrnu asking me to give it in his house. I had no knowledge that it was gold." The respondent was convicted and sentenced by lhe District. Magistrate. After his appeal aS;ainst the same was rejected by the Sessions Judge the respondent -filed a revision petition which was allowed by the fiigh Court on the ground that the prosecution had failed to establish that the metallic bars seized from the respondent were gold bars. The High Court rejected the evidence of the goldsmith on the g'round that he did neither have the tr&,iniog nor the qualification in the art of testing gold and that he had not conducted either the furnance test or the specific gravity test to determ!ne the character of the metallic bars. According to it, the goldsmith bad miserably failed in the witness box to gi've the impression that he was a competent person to certify that what were seized from the respondent were gold bars. The High Court was of tho view that no impor- tance could be given to the respondent's statement of admissiol,1 before the Customs Suprintendent as the san:ie had ~9t b;en put to him under s. 342, D E F G H A B c D E G 226 SUPREME COURT RE~RTS (!9C3] 2 s.c.a. Cr. P.C. and the person who rec9rded it had also not been examined. In so far as the answer given by ·the respondent to the question put by the court under s. 342, Cr. P.C. the High Court observed that even assuming that it would have some value, the prosecution could not seek to split the same into various parts and rely on what it considered to be advantageous to establish its case. Allowing the apeeal against ac:i.uittal, HE~D : The onus of proving]the facts essential to the establishment of the charge against an accused lies upon the prosecution and the evidence must be .such as to exclude every reaso11able doubt about the guilt of the accused. If a reas,Onable doubt arises in the Dlind of the court after taking into consi- deration the entire material before it regarding the ftcomplicity of the accused the benefit of such doubt should b·' given to the accused but the reasonable doubt should be a real and substantial one and a 1well founded actual doubt arising out of the evidence existing after consideration of all the evidence' . . [230 C-E] Woodroffe & Ameer Ali's La·v of Evidence, 13th ed. Vol. I, pp. 203-204, referred to. In the instant case the doubt entertained by the High Court about the nature c1f the metallic bars cannot be considered to be a reasonable doubt. It is well known that persons who are ·goldsmiths by profession are able to find out whether a piece of metal is gold or not b1 the colour of the streak produced by rubbing it on a toucb-stone used hy th-em even though their assessment of its purity may not be exact. Further. the respondent did not dispute that gold had been recovered· from his box. :Reading bis answer to the question put under s. 342, Cr. P.C. as a whole, it rneans that be knew that when his steel trunk was opened and searched there was gold in it but be bad no knowledge that the packet contained gold when it was banded
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.