Page 143 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

2020 ] QUASIM ALI v. SAJAL BARAN DAS 677

evidence were required in view of the excessive reliance placed by the Ld. Courts
below on the statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act recorded by the
officer of DRI.
13. PW1, Ashim Kumar Saha, Senior Intelligence Officer in his exami-
nation-in-chief narrated the search being conducted at 16, Ratu Sarkar Lane, Cal-
cutta-700073 at the premises of the petitioner in presence of two independent
witnesses and deposed that during search 3 pieces of tiger skin, 6 pieces of ele-
phant tusks, 1 piece of baby rhino horn, 290 pieces of tiger nails, 45 pieces of plas-
tic eye balls, one weighing scale machine along with different weights were re-
covered. The witness further deposed that the accused could not produce any
documentary evidence in support of possession of the aforesaid animal articles
as required under the 1972 Act and on enquiry the accused admitted that the said
articles were for illegal export out of India. The accused identified the seizure list
which was prepared by him and was marked as Ext. 1. The said document was
admitted after objection was raised by the accused. The witness also identified
his signature in seizure list which was also marked as Exhibit. The witness also
identified the signature of the accused on the 6 pieces of elephant tusks, on the 3
pieces of tiger skin, on the baby rhino horn which was marked as MAT Ext. I, II
& III respectively. The witness identified the 290 pieces of tiger nails which was
marked as MAT Ext. IV. The witness identified the signature of the accused on 45
plastic eye balls which was marked as MAT Ext. V and the weighing scale ma-
chine with 12 pieces of weights which was marked as Ext. 6 collectively. The
witness identified the brass seal which was seized from the accused and marked
as Ext. 8. The witness only narrated the recording of the statement of the accused
under Section 108 of the Customs Act by PW2.
14. PW2, Anup Raj Vitor Damta deposed that on the direction of PW1
he recorded the statement of the accused. The witness identified the seized items
which were marked as MAT Exhibits I to VII. The witness deposed that he rec-
orded the statement of the accused in his narration and the accused signed the
same. The said statement of the accused was marked as Ext. 2, the signature of
the witness and the accused was marked as Ext. 2/1 and 2/2. All these docu-
ments were marked as Exhibits after objection being given on behalf of the ac-
cused. The witness in his cross-examination stated that he is unable to identify
the articles to the extent whether the same belongs to this case or any other case
and proceeded to state that the material parts were produced before PW3.
15. PW3, Dilip Chattopadhyay identified his signature on the statement
recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act.
16. PW4, Sajal Baran Das reiterated his contention as made in the peti-
tion of complaint and added that he had sent the articles for expert opinion to
Zoological Survey of India. The witness identified all the materials which were
already marked as MAT Exhibits. In cross-examination the witness admitted that
in the seizure list the column relating to place of seizure do not reflect any prem-
ise number. He also stated in cross-examination that he had never been to the
place of occurrence, no sketch map was drawn in respect of premises where the
seizure was affected and admitted that he filed on the basis of presumption that
the articles were seized from the accused.
17. PW5, Dr. Sujit Chakraborty identified the report which was marked
as Ext. 6 and deposed that the report was submitted after examining the tiger
skin, tiger nails, tusks and rhino horn.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  143