Page 137 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

2020 ] ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUS. (PREVENTIVE), BOMBAY v. HASANALI RUMI 527

2020 (372) E.L.T. 527 (Bom.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
K.R. Shriram, J.
ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUS. (PREVENTIVE), BOMBAY
Versus
HASANALI RUMI
Criminal Appeal No. 136 of 1995, decided on 17-12-2019
Prosecution - Acquittal - Retraction of admission by accused - Acquit-
tal on the ground that statements of accused did not have any evidentiary val-
ue in absence of independent corroboration or evidence especially after retrac-
tion - Panch witness of panchnama recorded when goods were seized, had not
testified - All statements recorded in English but accused contending that they
do not read or write English - Accused retracting confession recorded on first
available opportunity - Detention of accused by Customs Authorities from
22-1-1987 to 25-1-1987 was in violation of Fundamental Rights guaranteed un-
der Articles 21 and 22 of Constitution of India - Statement of accused recorded
under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 not voluntary or absolutely truthful -
Sessions Court in appeal rightly holding that prosecution failed to prove its
case - No reason to interfere with order of acquittal passed 16 years ago. - There
is an acquittal and therefore, there is double presumption in favour of accused. Firstly,
the presumption of innocence available to the accused under the fundamental principle of
criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless they are
proved guilty by a competent Court of law. Secondly, accused having secured their ac-
quittal, the presumption of their innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strength-
ened by the trial Court. [paras 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19]
Appeal dismissed
CASES CITED
Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka — (2007) 4 SCC 415 — Referred ................................................. [Para 16]
Malki Singh v. Suresh Kumar Himatlal Parmar — 2020 (371) E.L.T. 642 (Bom.) — Relied on ..... [Para 12]
Romesh Chandra Mehta v. State of West Bengal — 1999 (110) E.L.T. 324 (S.C.)
— Referred ....................................................................................................................................... [Para 14]
Shah Guman Mal v. State of Andhra Pradesh — 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1631 (S.C.) — Referred ............ [Para 13]
State of Maharashtra v. Harshad Vaherbhai Patel — 2012 (1) Bom. C.R. (Cri) 500
— Relied on ...................................................................................................................................... [Para 12]
REPRESENTED BY : Ms. Anuradha Mane, for the Appellant.
Shri Taraq R. Sayed, for the Respondent.
[Judgment (Oral)]. - This is a case where the Customs authorities are
impugning an order of acquittal dated 8-10-1993 passed by the Additional Ses-
sions Judge, Mumbai, acquitting respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of offence under
various provisions of Customs Act, 1962 and Imports and Exports (Control) Act,
1947.
2. It is noted that Accused No. 4 during the course of pendency of this
appeal died and as per the order dated 25-11-2011, the appeal against the said
accused No. 4 abated. The impugned judgment was passed in the appeal filed by
the accused challenging an order and judgment dated 7-12-1989 passed by the
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai, convicting the accused for
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  137