A.S. Bains, J. - (1.) THE Assistant Collector (Customs), Amritsar, has filed this revision petition against the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, dated 28th February, 1977, vide which the Respondents were discharged of the offence alleged against them.
(2.) A complaint under Section 135(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was filed against the accused -Respondents by the Petitioner on the ground that the accused persons were caught smuggling 18 bags containing Cardamanvlame(sic) weighing 686 kilogrammes from India to Pakistan, on 29th May, 197l by the raiding party constituted of the police staff of Lopoke and the Border Security Staff of Kakar, who had held naka on the drain bridge in village Rania. The truck No PNA 675(sic), in which the said goods were being carried, was stopped by giving a singal. The occupants of the truck opened fire at the raiding party, who returned the fire - Ultimately, the accused Respondents were apprehended and the truck was seized. It was alleged that they were illegally and illicitly smuggling this material to Pakistan through an unauthorised route in violation of Government of India's notification No l2(I)F.I.A 7, dated 4th August 1947, issued under Section 12 of the Foreign Exchanges Regulations, 1947 The goods were also seized and taken into possession and after adjudication proceedings they were ordered to be confiscated and a penalty of Rs. 200/ each was also imposed on each of the accused Respondent.
(3.) NINE witnesses were cited, but none of them except Shri Mulkh Raj, Inspector Customs (P.W. 1)and A.s.I Sewak Ram (P.W 2) was produced although the prosecution was given 25 opportunities to produce the witnesses. The learned Magistrate observed that even if the prosecution evidence goes unrebutted, it is not sufficient to warrant their conviction. He accordingly discharged the accused Respondents. Mr. Kuldip Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, could not point out any Infirmity in the order of the learnt d Magistrate He only contended that the evidence of A.S.I Sewek Ram (P.W. 2) is enough to convict the Respondents. I do not agree with this contention of Mr. Kuldip Singh. As many as 25 opportunities were given to the prosecution to produce the evidence. Two of the cited witnesses are independent witnesses and the other are officials of the B.S.F and the police If only Sewak Ram, A.S. I had witnessed the occurrence, then the contention of Mr Kuldip Singh could have some weight But many officials of the B.S.F and the police, including the two independent witnesses, had witnessed the occurrence. There is no statement on the record by the Public Prosecutor that the other witnesses are won over It is the bounden duty of the Court to scrutinize the documents placed on record and apply its judicial mind to see if the case is fit one for framing the charge against the accused or not. In Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., v. The State of Maharashtra : A.I.R. 1972 S.C 545, it is observed by the Supreme Court as under: - It cannot be said that the Court at the stage of framing the charges has not to apply its judicial mind for considering who there or not there is a ground for presuming the commission of the offence by the accused. The order framing the charges does substantially affect the persons liberty and it cannot be said that the court must automatically frame the charge merely because the prosecuting authorities by relying on the documents referred to in Section 173(sic) consider it proper to institute the case. The responsibility of framing the charges is that of the court and it has to judicially consider the Question of doing so. Without fully adverting to the material on the record it must not blindly adopt the decision of the prosecution. It is settled law that the jurisdiction of this Court on the revisional side to interfere in the orders of acquittal or discharge is very limited. Thee case can only be sent back for retrial if there is a manifest illegality in the order or there is gross miscarriage of justice. But neither of these grounds exists in this case.;