Page 148 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

826 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

(1) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and recon-
sider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded;
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or
condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence
before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law;
(3) Various expressions, such as, ‘substantial and compelling reasons’,
‘good and sufficient grounds’, ‘very strong circumstances’, ‘distorted con-
clusions’, ‘glaring mistakes’, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive pow-
ers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies
are more in the nature of ‘flourishes of language’ to emphasize the reluc-
tance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the
power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclu-
sion.
(4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquit-
tal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the pre-
sumption 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 ac-
cused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is fur-
ther reinforced, reaffirmed 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 finding of acquittal
recorded by the trial court. “
22. 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 Trial Court rightly observed that the prosecu-
tion had failed to prove its case.
23. 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.
24. Appeal dismissed.
_______
2020 (372) E.L.T. 826 (Bom.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY AT GOA

M.S. Sonak and Dama Seshadri Naidu, JJ.
GKB OPHTHALMICS LTD.
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, GOA
Customs Appeal No. 1 of 2019 with C.A. Nos. 2-6 of 2019, decided on 20-2-2020
1
Appellate Tribunal’s order - Non-speaking order - Demand of Cus-
toms duty on wastage generated in warehouse of EOU - Impugned order indi-
________________________________________________________________________
1 On appeal from 2018 (363) E.L.T. 631 (Tribunal) & 2018 (364) E.L.T. 266 (Tribunal).
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  148