Page 142 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

532 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

sons’, ‘good and sufficient grounds’, ‘very strong circumstances’,
‘distorted conclusions’, ‘glaring mistakes’, etc. are not intended to
curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against
acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of ‘flourishes of
language’ to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to in-
terfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to re-
view the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of
acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the the accused.
Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to him under the
fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person
shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a
competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his
acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, re-
affirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the
evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the find-
ing of acquittal recorded by the trial court.”
17. 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 acquittal, the presumption
of their innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the Trial
Court. For acquitting accused, the Sessions Court in Appeal rightly observed that
the prosecution had failed to prove its case.
18. In the circumstances, in my view, the opinion of the Trial Court
cannot be held to be illegal or improper or contrary to law. The order of acquittal,
in my view, need not be interfered with.
19. I have to also note that the judgment impugned is dated 8-10-1993.
More than 16 years have passed since the acquittal. Since, I do not find any rea-
son to interfere in the impugned judgment, the appeal is dismissed.
_______

2020 (372) E.L.T. 532 (Mad.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dr. Vineet Kothari and R. Suresh Kumar, JJ.
HI FASN LEATHER PRODUCTS CO.
Versus
JT. C.C. (AIRPORT & CARGO), CHENNAI
JT. COMMR. OF CUS. (AIRPORT & CARGO), CHENNAI
JT. C.C. (AIRPORT & CARGO), CHENNAI
C.M.A. Nos. 3240, 3464 & 3465 of 2019 and C.M.P. Nos. 18564, 20315 & 20316
of 2019, decided on 5-12-2019
1
Redemption fine and penalty - Sample of exported goods - Retesting
of - Assessee even though obtained a Report from the same Institute, product
________________________________________________________________________
1 On appeal from 2019 (369) E.L.T. 1435 (Tribunal).
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  142