Page 134 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

524 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

2020 (372) E.L.T. 524 (Bom.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
K.R. Shriram, J.
UNION OF INDIA
Versus
HUKMICHAND JAIN
Criminal Appeal No. 410 of 2001, decided on 13-1-2020
Prosecution - Offence - Export obligation not fulfilled, whether an of-
fence - Contravention of condition of imprest licence - Charges framed not
containing any charge of forgery but only that respondents failed to fulfil ex-
port obligations under licence issued - Accused contending that failure to
comply with export obligation due to certain unavoidable circumstances and
export obligations fulfilled within extension of time granted - Acquittal on the
ground that prosecution had failed to prove its case - Conclusion of Trial Court
not illegal or improper or contrary to law and in terms with weight of evidence
- Order not interfered with - Section 5 of Imports and Exports (Control) Act,
1947. - There is an acquittal and therefore, there is double presumption in favour of ac-
cused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to the accused under the funda-
mental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be in-
nocent unless they are proved guilty by a competent Court of law. Secondly, accused hav-
ing secured their acquittal, the presumption of their innocence is further reinforced, reaf-
firmed and strengthened by the Trial Court. [2019 (5) SCC 418, (2007) 4 SCC 415 relied
on]. [paras 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]
Appeal dismissed
CASES CITED
Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa — (2019) 5 SCC 418 — Relied on ....................................................... [Para 6]
Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka — (2007) 4 SCC 415 — Relied on ................................................. [Para 7]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Dhirendra Pratap Singh, for the Appellant.
Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar, APP, Ms. Ayushi
Anandpara as Amicus Curaie, for the Respondent.
[Judgment (Oral)]. - Since the accused was not represented, this Court
appointed Ms. Ayushi Anandpara as Amicus Curaie. I have to note the immense
assistance of Ms. Anandpara.
2. The Union of India, through Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and
Exports, Mumbai, has impugned an order and judgment dated 16-4-1998 passed
by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai, acquitting
the accused of offence under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) [Act,]
1947 (the said Act).
3. It is the case of appellant that Respondent No. 2 through Respondent
No. 1 applied to the office of Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports,
Mumbai, for granting imprest licence in terms of paragraph 3 of Appendix-13 of
Import Policy AM 85-88 for import of rough diamonds, uncut and unset. Appel-
lant states that Respondent No. 2 was issued licence with certain export obliga-
tions mentioned in the licence. It is the case of appellant that these obligations
were not met, though time was extended twice and, therefore, Respondent Nos.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  134