Judgment :- The Order of the Court is as follows :- The appellant is the Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Customs (C.I.U.), Madurai, who has preferred this appeal against the order of acquittal of the accused passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai in C.C. No. 68/1990. Respondents 1 to 8 for the sake of convenience hereinafter will be called as accused 1 to 8 respectively. 2.Accused 1 to 4 belong to Tuticorin and A5 to A8 are Sri Lankans. On the night of 7-9-1990 at about 12.30 hours, the Superintendent of Central Excise and Customs, Tuticorin and his party were conducting Sea Patrol near the Naw Port, Tuticorin and they noticed one boat at about 1.00 a.m. on 8-9-1990. When they intercepted, they noticed A1 to A3 occupying the boat and on enquiry they informed the officers that they came to the spot to receive contraband gold bars and immediately some of the officers got into the said Vallam, while others were conducting patrol near the buoy. At about 2.00 a.m. on 8-9-1990, the Superintendent of Customs and other officers noticed a launch approaching the shore and they gave conventional signal to stop the launch, but since it did not stop, they gave a chase and opened fire. When they intercepted the same they found A5 to A8 inside the launch and one cloth bag containing gold bars kept concealed in the Engine Room of the launch. Thereafter, the launch was brought to Old Port Wharf, Tuticorin. They examined the launch in detail and found the bag containing the gold bars in a cloth bag having markings "New Buhari Stores, W.G.C. Road, Tuticorin" on both sides. They also saw 12 heavy parcels covered with white colour plaster and on opening the same, they found 10 gold bars with foreign markings in each parcel and there were totally 120 gold bars in the said 12 parcels. Out of 120 gold bars, 55 gold bars contain the markings "Union Bank of Switzerland - 10 Tolas - Melter - Assayer - 999.0", 23 gold bars contain the markings "Credit Suisse - 999.0 - 10 Tolas - Essayeur Fondeur" and that the balance 31 gold bars contain the markings "Johnson Matthey - London 999.0 - 10 Tolas". Then they went to Customs office, Tuticorin for weighing the gold bars. Then they went to Customs office, Tuticorin for weighing the gold bars. 3.They also found 19 new fishing nets and 4 old fishing nets totally weighing 825 kgs. with ropes. All the accused were examined and they admitted that the said 120 gold bars of foreign origin were smuggled into India from Sri Lanka. 23 fishing nets are also of foreign origin. The officers siezed the gold bars, fishing nets, 12 white colour plasters, cloth bag and the wooden launch with fibre coating and also 100 litres of diesel. Accused 1 to 3 on examination informed the officers that they came there to receive 120 contraband gold bars smuggled from Sri Lanka and their Vallam was also siezed. The gold bars weighed 13.992 kgs. with 24 ct. purity valuing Rs. 48, 41, 232/-. The said 23 fishing nets with ropes were valued at Rs. 59, 155/-, Sri Lankan launch was valued at Rs. 1, 75, 000/-, the country boat, in which A1 to A3 came was valued at Rs. 25, 000/- and the 100 litres of diesel was valued at Rs. 400/-. Thus, the total value of the goods siezed was Rs. 51, 10, 787/-. 4.Investigation revealed that one Razack of Colombo used to send gold bars to Xavier of Tuticorin, who is A4 in this case, through A5 to A8, who in turn will hand over them to A1 to A3, who would deliver the same to one Abdullah, as per the instructions of Razack of Colombo. Razack and Abdullah could not be contacted because their correct addresses were not given. Thus, the import of gold into India without permission of the Reserve Bank of India, is prohibited under Section 13(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 r/w Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 5..W. 1 was examined as eye witness to the occurrence P.W. 2, one Murugan, who is an Appraiser was also examined on behalf of the prosecution and P.W. 3, one Sipoy of Excise and Customs was examined and on his interpretation, the Ceylonese version given by A5 to A8 was translated to Tamil. Exs. P1, Mahazar, P2-Search Warrant, P3-Mahazar, P4-Weighment Mahazar, P5 to P12-Statements of Accused 1 to 8, P13-Chemical Report and Ex. 14-Sanction Order were marked on the side of the prosecution. M.Os. 1 to 8 were also marked. Exs. P1, Mahazar, P2-Search Warrant, P3-Mahazar, P4-Weighment Mahazar, P5 to P12-Statements of Accused 1 to 8, P13-Chemical Report and Ex. 14-Sanction Order were marked on the side of the prosecution. M.Os. 1 to 8 were also marked. After the evidence of prosecution was over, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence against them and they denied their complicity in the commission of offence and on behalf of the accused D.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs. D1 to D8 that are the retracted statements of Accused 1 to 8 were marked. D.W. 1 being a mahazar witness to the seizure turned sides and then gave evidence that he signed in 5 or 6 blank papers. D.W. 2, who is an Assistant in the Trial Court only marked Ex.C. 8, which is the retracted statement of A4. 6.On the side of the prosecution, P.W. 1, the Superintendent of Police, Customs and Central Excise Department, gave evidence that on 7-9-1990 on the information he reached fishing harbour at Tuticorin at about 10.45 p.m. and while he was patroling there along with his party, he noticed a boat at about 1O' clock in the early hours of 8-9-1990 and then intercepted the same. He would also say that he found the accused 1 to 3 in the said boat. This aspect of the evidence was not challenged by A1 to A3 in the cross-examination. What has been elicited in the cross-examination of P.W. 1 is that from Accused No. 1 to 3 no incriminating materials have been seized and the suggestion made was that when they were found fishing in the ocean, they were arrested and a false case has been foisted against them. Except this suggestion, there is absolutely nothing in the cross examination of P.W. 1 to prove that none of these accused 1 to 3 were present in the boat at the time of occurrence as stated by P.W. 1. The next aspect of the evidence of P.W. 1 is that while accused 1 to 3 were examined they told P.W. 1 that they were waiting to receive gold biscuits that were on the way in a launch from Ceylon. After their arrest, statements were recorded from them and the same were marked as Exs. P5, 6 & 7. The next aspect of the evidence of P.W. 1 is that while accused 1 to 3 were examined they told P.W. 1 that they were waiting to receive gold biscuits that were on the way in a launch from Ceylon. After their arrest, statements were recorded from them and the same were marked as Exs. P5, 6 & 7. These statements were recorded from the accused No. 1 to 3 on 8-9-1990. In these statements, these three accused have stated that one Xavier belonging to Tuticorin was engaged in smuggling gold and doing business in smuggled gold and that they were working under Xavier and used to receive smuggled gold and hand over to Xavier. A2 has further stated that as and when gold bars were smuggled from Ceylon, he used to receive them and take them in the boat to hand them over to the said Xavier. He further says that within past two months, he had done this job thrice. All these accused also would say that in the night of 7-9-1990, they were asked to wait in the boat in the Sea, by Xavier and as and when they noticed a launch coming from Ceylon they should tell the person present in the launch the word "Raja" and immediately the latter will hand over the gold bars to them. They have further stated that they started by 12.25 a.m. on 7-9-1990 and they were waiting for the Ceylon launch and about 1.00 a.m., the custom's officials have intercepted them. These statements were retracted by these accused by Court Exs.1 to 3. These retracted statements were dated 25-10-1990. They were forwarded to the Trial Court through the Superintendent of Central Prison, Madurai along with his letter dated 25-10-1990. The arrest was on 8-9-1990 and the statements were recorded from them on 8-10-1990, but for the first time, the statements were retracted only on 25-10-1990. 7.Insofar as another accused, A4 is concerned, at whose instance, according to the prosecution the accused 1 to 3 went and were waiting for the Ceylon launch, the evidence available against him is his own statement recorded as Ex.P.8 as well as the statements of these co-accused 1 to 3. 7.Insofar as another accused, A4 is concerned, at whose instance, according to the prosecution the accused 1 to 3 went and were waiting for the Ceylon launch, the evidence available against him is his own statement recorded as Ex.P.8 as well as the statements of these co-accused 1 to 3. In Ex.P.8, he has stated that he came to know one Razack of Ceylon while he was travelling in a bus from Madurai to Tuticorin and they had a private talk regarding smuggling of gold bars to be handed over to one Abdullah and pursuant to their acquaintance and understanding during the third and fourth week of August, 1990, thrice the said Razack sent 50, 80, 100 gold bars respectively and the same were received by the accused 1 to 3 on his behalf and handed over to him, who in turn handed them over to the said Abdullah and at each times, the said Abdullah gave him a commission of Rs. 15, 000/-. Further, he would say that Razack from Colombo used to contact him over phone for these transactions. Again at about 10.00 a.m. on 7-9-1990, he received a phone call from Razack, who told him that he was sending 120 gold biscuits and that it would reach Tuticorin Harbour near White Buoy between 1.00 a.m. and 3.00 a.m. and before meeting the persons who were in the launch, match stick has to be lighted three times and then the word "Raja" should be uttered and immediately those who come in the Celyon launch would hand over the gold bars. He would further say that he engaged the accused 1 to 3 for that purpose. Accused 1 to 3 corroborated in their statements regarding the complicity of A4 in the commission of the offence. With this background, we have to decide whether the statements recorded from accused No. 1 to 4 can be admitted in evidence or they are liable to be rejected. This could be decided after the discussion of the evidence against A5 to A8, because A5 to A8 have given similar statements. With this background, we have to decide whether the statements recorded from accused No. 1 to 4 can be admitted in evidence or they are liable to be rejected. This could be decided after the discussion of the evidence against A5 to A8, because A5 to A8 have given similar statements. 8..W. 1 would further say that at about 2.00 a.m. on 8-9-1990, he noticed the Ceylon launch coming towards harbour and on seeing them it turned to different side and therefore the officers shot in the air five times and as and when the launch stopped they got into the launch and found four persons inside the launch, who are accused 5 to 8. When they searched the launch, they found in the Engine Room, a Khaki Bag when the Khaki bag was opened, they also found the gold bars. When P.W. 1 orally examined the inmates of the launch, they told him that they were smuggling gold biscuits from Ceylon. Thereafter, A1 to A3 and A5 to A8 were taken to the Wharf in the Old Port at Tuticorin and then the launch was searched in detail. When P.W. 1 opened the Kaki bag, he found 120 gold biscuits covered by 12 tapes and there were 23 fishing nets along with ropes. P.W. 1 found the gold biscuits of foreign origin, because the names of foreign countries were imprinted in them and the fishing nets also were of foreign origin. Then statements were recorded from A5 to A8 also. Those statements have been marked as Exs. 9 to 12. Since they belong to Sri Lanka, as they could not speak Tamil fluently, the help of P.W. 3 was sought for the P.W. 3, who is a Sipoy working in the Customs and Excise Department, Tuticorin, since he knows Singalese, interpreted the statements given by these accused and they were recorded in Tamil. P.W. 3 has also spoken to that effect during the course of his evidence. He also signed in all these documents. The suggestion put to him was that he did not translate the statements of A5 to A8 from Singalese to Tamil and he does not know Singalese at all, because he is a departmental man, he was giving evidence on behalf of the department. He also signed in all these documents. The suggestion put to him was that he did not translate the statements of A5 to A8 from Singalese to Tamil and he does not know Singalese at all, because he is a departmental man, he was giving evidence on behalf of the department. Except this, nothing is there to discredit the evidence of P.W. 3 that it was he who translated and interpreted the statements of A5 to A8. Insofar as A5 to A8 are concerned, during the course of their cross-examination of P.W. 1, nothing has been elicited to discredit the evidence of P.W. 1 except the following points. 8..W. 1 in his evidence has stated that the gold which was seized at the Sea was entrusted with two officers. Much has been said about this statement of the witness questioning the very seizure itself as if the seizure was made at the high sea itself and not in the port as alleged by P.W. 1. P.W. 1 is catagoric that the entire seizure was made and mahazars prepared only at the shore and this entrustment was only for safety purpose. Without any detailed search when the Superintendent of Customs finds gold biscuits in the launch, they cannot be left abandoned uncared for before their regular seizure is made and that is why, P.W. 1 has taken care to post two persons to safeguard the gold biscuits. This does not mean that the gold biscuits were seized at the high seas itself. The suggestion that the accused were threatened, coerced and the statements were forcibly obtained was denied by P.W. 1. Except this bare suggestion, nothing has been elicited to reject the evidence of P.W.1, when he said that the statements of the accused were voluntary. 9.The next aspects of the case is to find out how far the statement of the accused can be relied upon. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accused relied on a ruling of this High Court rendered in the case of E. Kessavan v. Assitant Collector of Customs (Prosecution) Preventive Department Customs House, Madras, reported in. The relevant extract is as follows : "Obviously, the accused has been mainly convicted on his confessional statement which has since been retracted by him. The relevant extract is as follows : "Obviously, the accused has been mainly convicted on his confessional statement which has since been retracted by him. But it is observed that the confessional statement was recorded by questioning and was given by the accused after he was beaten up by Customs Officers which is confirmed by the Doctor who attended to his injuries. In view of this, it is difficult to believe that the confessional statement of the accused was voluntary and true and was not given under compulsion, coercion or threat." 10.On this ground, the learned Judge held that mere confessional statement accused will not be sufficient to convict the accused unless it is corroborated by other evidence and in that case, it appears the statement was not at all corroborated. But here is a case where there is no proof of any torture or coercion before the statements were recorded from the accused. Moreover, P.W. 1 spoke to the seizure as well as possession by all the four accused namely, A5 to A8. They alone were available in the launch where not only the 120 gold biscuits were seen but also fishing nets of foreign orgin were recovered. No explanation has been given by the accused except bare denial. Their only statement is that they were fishing in the deep sea and have been taken to the shore and tortured and then a case was foisted against them. If really, it was their case that they went for fishing in the deep sea, at least one fish would have been available in the launch. Moreover, none of the fishing nets were found to have been used or even wet and everyone of the nets was said to have been fresh ones. Under these circumstances, the theory of fishing could not be countenanced. Even when they were remanded to judicial custody on production by the Customs Officials, there was absolutely no complaint of torture by the customs officials and no injuries were found on the accused. The defence of the other accused namely, A1 to A3 also is that they were fishing and at that time they were taken by the officials. As in the case of the launch so in the case of the boat also, there was not even a single fish. The defence of the other accused namely, A1 to A3 also is that they were fishing and at that time they were taken by the officials. As in the case of the launch so in the case of the boat also, there was not even a single fish. Under these circumstances, there is no proof or even a semblance of torture or coercion on the part of the customs officials, while statements were recorded from the accused concerned. Therefore, these statements of A1 to A3 as well as A5 to A8 are quite voluntary and they are also corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 1 and the seizure of 120 gold biscuits as well as fishing nets of foreign origin. Therefore the ruling sited by the defence is of no avail to the accused. As against the abovesaid ruling, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State relied on the ruling of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Naresh J. Sukhawani v. Union of India reported in wherein it has been held that the statement made before the customs officials is not a statement recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; therefore, it is a material piece of evidence collected by Customs officials under Section 108 of the Customs Act and that material incriminates the petitioner inculpating him in the contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act. This ruling squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Yet another ruling reported in 2000 (1) MWN (Crl.) S.C. 31 in the case of Pon Adithan v. Deputy Director, Narcotics Control Bureau, Madras, was relied on by the prosecution. It has been held that the retracted statement was recorded from the accused only while questioning under Section 313 Cr. P.C. and no compliant was made when the accused was produced before the Magistrate on the next day of the confessional statement and even in the statement under Section 313, nothing was stated as to what was the nature of the threat or pressure brought upon on the accused. So saying the Apex Court held that the confessional statement was voluntary. Here also though the statement was recorded on 8-9-1990, the retracted statements were sent from all the accused from the jail only on 25-10-1990. So saying the Apex Court held that the confessional statement was voluntary. Here also though the statement was recorded on 8-9-1990, the retracted statements were sent from all the accused from the jail only on 25-10-1990. Therefore, in the absence of any report to the Magistrate concerned, while being produced for remand and in the absence of retracting the confessional statements at any other earliest opportunity, the retractions made after nearly 45 days after the recording of the statement does not in any way affect the credibility of the confessional statement made by these accused. Insofar as A4 is concerned, though P.W. 1 effected a search in his house he could not find out any incriminating material. The fourth accused was arrested on the strength of the statement of the accused 1 to 3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for A4 vehemently argued that in the absence of any identity, the arrest of A4 and implication of A4 in this case is totally wrong. It is not necessary for the customs officials to disclose how they reached at A4. P.W. 1 also obtained a warrant from Court, which has been marked as Ex. P. 2 for search of the house of A4. Moreover, it is the statement of A1 to A3 that revealed the connection of A4 in the crime and immediately A4 was traced out and arrested and his house was also searched. It is the ruling of the Apex Court in that the statement of the co-accused inculpating not only himself but also another accused person can be used as substantive piece of evidence against that another person also. Therefore, the statements of A1 and A3 alleging complicity of A4 in the crime can be used as against A4 also. 11.In these types of cases, where everything happens planned as to how the offence has to be committed, we cannot expect witnesses for each and every piece of evidence and there was also no necessity for A1 and A3 to implicate A4. No questions were asked during the course of cross-examination of P.W. 1 to elicit that A4 has been falsely implicated in this case. Further, A4 himself has given a statement before the customs officials and it has been marked as Ex. No questions were asked during the course of cross-examination of P.W. 1 to elicit that A4 has been falsely implicated in this case. Further, A4 himself has given a statement before the customs officials and it has been marked as Ex. P.8, wherein he has admitted that he knows Razack of Colombo and got himself acquainted with him while travelling in the bus from Madurai to Tuticorin and the said Razack introduced one Abdullah also. He had further admitted that during the third and fourth week of August as well as in the month of July, thrice he received gold bars through A1 to A3 and handed over to one Abdullah and that he engaged A1 to A3 for the purpose of receiving smuggled gold. He had also admitted that the said Razack used to contact him over phone from Ceylon regarding the despatch of the jewels and this time also he contacted him on 7-9-1990 at about 10.00 a.m. in the morning and told him that the launch will reach Tuticorin by 1.00 a.m. to 3.00 a.m. next early morning and the moment, the launch is seen, match stick should be thrice lighted and then the word "Raja" should be uttered and then immediately, those who come in the launch would hand over the gold bars. The only defect in the case of prosecution is that the said Abdullah has not been traced. So far as Razack is concened, he is a Colombo man and he has also not been traced. Merely because, Razack and Abdullah were not traced by the customs officials, can these accused be let off scot free, without being punished for the offence committed by them? Even when P.W. 1 was in the box, no question was asked by any of the accused during the course of cross-examination as to who is that Abdullah and who is Razack. The defence has also been silent while cross-examining P.W. 1 on the point of whereabouts of either Razack or Abdullah. Therefore, merely because those two persons could not be traced out by the customs officials, I hold that the case against these accused is not affected at all. The defence has also been silent while cross-examining P.W. 1 on the point of whereabouts of either Razack or Abdullah. Therefore, merely because those two persons could not be traced out by the customs officials, I hold that the case against these accused is not affected at all. 12.Learned Senior Counsel appearing for A1 to A4 contended that there was no charge of 120 B.I.P.C. Section 120B can come into place in the event of a charge against the said Razack and Abdullah, but they are not accused in this case. Therefore the question of invoking Section 120B I.P.C. does not arise. 13.Yet another point raised by the learned Senior Counsel for A1 to A4 is that the bag, M.O. 8, in which M.Os. 1 to 6, gold bars were said to have been found was bearing the markings "New Buhari Stores, W.G.C. Road, Tuticorin" and hence these gold bars could not have been smuggled from Ceylon, but they should have been found at the shore itself and a false case has been foisted against these accused. It is in the statement of the accused that several times they have smuggled gold. While so, there is every possibility of making use of this bag, which may be of Indian origin for the purpose of smuggling goods. After all, Indians also form part of the smuggling gang and hence, it is not necessary that smuggled goods should be packed only in a bag of Ceylon origin. Therefore, this aspect of the case does not affect the prosecution rather strengthens the truthfulness and genuineness of the prosecution case. If it is a case of concoction, there was no necessity for the customs officials to put all the gold bars inside a bag bearing the marking "New Buhari Stores, W.G.C. Road, Tuticorin". It is the suggestion of the defence that these gold bars were lying uncared for and when the customs officials came across them, they foisted a case against these innocent accused. This suggestion is not only vague but it cannot be even accepted in the absence of any animosity for the customs officials against any one of the accused. Why should the innocent persons be roped-in in such a grave crime? Therefore, the suggestion made by the defence has no force and is liable to be rejected. This suggestion is not only vague but it cannot be even accepted in the absence of any animosity for the customs officials against any one of the accused. Why should the innocent persons be roped-in in such a grave crime? Therefore, the suggestion made by the defence has no force and is liable to be rejected. It is a case where three persons were intercepted in a boat and the customs officials came to know that they were waiting for the arrival of a launch from Ceylon with smuggled gold and they were also laying in wait and as and when the launch was cited they signalled and when the launch took a different side, immediately, shooting was made in the air and that is how the launch was captured. Under these circumstances, what was the necessity for the customs officials to wait there for a launch to arrive if earlier, they had found the gold bars in the shore itself? Therefore, it is a clear case that A1 to A3, on instructions of A4 were waiting in the sea near the shore and A5 to A8 came with the smuggled gold. 14.Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 5 to 8 contended that the statements of A5 to A8 could not have been recorded on 8-9-1990 and since they were retracted on 25-10-1990, their statements should not be taken into consideration especially when they were produced in Court only on 17-12-1990. Unfortunately, the learned counsel was under the impression that it is a case filed on a police report and the report should be accompanied by the documents relied on by the prosecution as envisaged under Section 173 Clause 5 Cr.P.C. forgetting for a moment that it is a complaint standing on a different footing altogether and the documents are produced as and when evidence is recorded. In fact P.W. 1's evidence was recorded on 17-12-1990 and on that day, these statements of the accused were produced in Court. If for arguments sake, the contention of the learned counsel has to be accepted, then these statements should have been recorded according to him, after 25-10-1990. How is it possible when all these accused were in jail? Therefore, late production of the statements of the accused (Exs. If for arguments sake, the contention of the learned counsel has to be accepted, then these statements should have been recorded according to him, after 25-10-1990. How is it possible when all these accused were in jail? Therefore, late production of the statements of the accused (Exs. P. 5 to P. 12) during the course of trial does not in any way advance the case of the defence that they were prepared at the later point of time, especially when the signatures of the accused found in those statements are not denied and it was also not their case that the statements were recorded at a later point of time. No such questions were asked in the cross-examination of P.W. 1 also. According to the learned counsel appearing for A5 to A8 only signatures were obtained from the accused and they have not given any statements. Thus, the retraction came out only on 25-10-1990 as stated already, 45 days after obtaining their statements. If the accused would have simply signed blank papers and statements would have been recorded at a later stage, how can they know before retracting on 25-10-1990 that they were implicated in a case of smuggling of gold. Though, in those retracted statemets they claim that the fish found inside the boat worth about Rs. 10, 000/- was thrown away in the sea itself, it is quite unbelievable. Moreover, when these accused were produced before the learned Magistrate for remand, no such retraction was made nor any allegation of torture by the customs officials. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel has no substance. 15. The next contention of learned counsel appearing for the accused is that no independent witnesses were examined to prove the seizure. It is a case where the launch was intercepted in the Sea, taken to the shore and then seizure was effected in the shore. No doubt, in this case, no independent witnesses have been examined to prove the seizure, though they have attested the seizure. In fact there is no use even to examine any independent witnesses for the seizure of the boat because the boat was intercepted at the high seas and no independent witnesses could have been secured at the odd hours during night time. Even if any independent witnesses are taken along with the customs officials, it would be canvassed that they are interested and stock witnesses. Even if any independent witnesses are taken along with the customs officials, it would be canvassed that they are interested and stock witnesses. In fact, the Mahazar witness, who was examined as D.W. 1 would say that he signed in blank papers. Therefore, there is no impediment in relying on the evidence of custom officials provided their evidences, appears to be trustworthy and reliable. The learned Special Public Prosecutor relied on the ruling of the Supreme Court reported in 1996 SCC(Crl) 515 in the case of Tahir v. State. The Supreme Court has held as follows: "No infirmity attaches to the testimony of police officials, merely because they belong to the police force and there is no rule of law or evidence which lays down the conviction cannot be recorded on the evidence of the police officials, if found reliable unless corroborated by some independent evidence. The rule of prudence however only requires a more careful scrutiny of their evidence, since they can be said to be interested in the result of the case projected by them. Where the evidence of the police officials, after careful scrutiny, inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can for the basis of conviction and the absence of some independent witness of the locality to lend corroboration to their evidence, does not in any way affect the credit worthiness of the prosecution case." In this case also, P.W. 1's evidence inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable and non-examination of independent witnesses for the seizure does not affect the facts of the present case. 16.Learned counsel appearing for A1 to A3 as well as A5 to A8 vehemently contended that the seizure was already made in the deep sea itself and therefore the case of the prosecution that the gold bars as well as the fishing nets were seized only at the shore is belied. The learned Sessions Judge, who chose to acquit all the accused also held so as stated supra. The entrustment of the gold bars immediately after noticing them, with two officials of the customs department was purely for safe custody and not for the purpose of seizure. The salient distinction between seizure and safe custody has been misconstrued in this case. The learned Sessions Judge, who chose to acquit all the accused also held so as stated supra. The entrustment of the gold bars immediately after noticing them, with two officials of the customs department was purely for safe custody and not for the purpose of seizure. The salient distinction between seizure and safe custody has been misconstrued in this case. When in the high seas, four persons were found in possession of 120 gold bars, can the officials keep quite and in case if these two officials were not posted to take care of the gold bars, there could have been every likelihood of these accused throwing away the gold bars into the sea to escape from culpability. Therefore, it is only out of caution, two officials were entrusted with the bag, which contained gold biscuits. 17.Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai has not appreciated the distinction between search and seizure. According to him, the seizure was in the high seas and therefore, he did not give any credence to the mahazars relied on in this case. Merely because, P.W. 1 during the course of cross examination said that the gold bars were entrusted with the customs officials, it does not mean that the seizure was completed at the sea itself. Since the place of occurrence was no doubt sea, P.W. 1 in the cross examination said "Kadalil Piditha Thangathai". Reference was made to this phrase by the learned Sessions Judge to acquit the accused, which according to me is not the proper approach in such a case. 18.The Trial Court has also commented on the statements of these accused 5 to 8 on the ground that the statements were not recorded in Singalese but straightaway recorded in Tamil. It is the evidence of P.W. 3, who claims to know Singalese that he only functioned as an interpretor between the officials and the accused to interpret the statements in Tamil. The learned Sessions Judge says that their statements should be recorded in Singalese and then should be translated into Tamil. I do not think, this irregularity will affect the prosecution case in toto. According to the learned Sessions Judge, merely because, the cloth bag was opened in the sea itself, the customs officials have seized all the gold bars there itself. I do not think, this irregularity will affect the prosecution case in toto. According to the learned Sessions Judge, merely because, the cloth bag was opened in the sea itself, the customs officials have seized all the gold bars there itself. The relevant portion of his judgment is as follows : While the learned Sessions Judge held that A5 to A8 were present in the sea and the bag containing gold bars were also seized in the sea itself, how can he acquit the accused? According to him, the accused ought to have taken the gold bars and handed over to the customs officials. I do not think that proof of possession requires such an overt act on the part of the accused. When admittedly, the launch was occupied by only four persons A5 to A8 and in the engine room a bag containing gold bars were found, nothing more is necessary to prove the culpability of these accused and it is also not their case that the gold bars were kept in the Engine Room without their knowledge. Possession in the boat occupied by these four persons is possession by themselves. Therefore, I am unable to agree with the learned Sessions Judge that possession could be taken to be proved only when the accused picked up the gold bars and handed over them to the customs officials. This reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge is highly hypothetical and does not have any sanction of law. Moreover, once the prosecution proves that A5 to A8 were in possession of goods liable for confiscation, it is for the accused to explain as to how they are legally entitled for possession. Their bare denial would provide the missing link even in case of circumstantial evidence not to say about a case where eye witness account available for proof of possession with the accused. 19. In any prosecution case, certain trivial discrepancies are bound to occur in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. But the learned Sessions Judge has magnified them and then entered the verdict of acquittal and the reasonings given by the learned Sessions Judge are palpably wrong and suffer from perversity and this has caused miscarriage of justice. 20. It is the contention of the acused that the gold bars were not proved to be of foreign origin. But the learned Sessions Judge has magnified them and then entered the verdict of acquittal and the reasonings given by the learned Sessions Judge are palpably wrong and suffer from perversity and this has caused miscarriage of justice. 20. It is the contention of the acused that the gold bars were not proved to be of foreign origin. The very markings on the bars as evident from the mahazars as well as the complaint as extracted below clearly indicate that they are of foreign origin. "Out of 120 gold bars, sixty six gold bars containing the markings -" Union Bank of Switzerland - 10 Tolas - Melter - Assayer- 999.0"23 gold bars containing the markings -" Credit Suisse - 999.0 - 10 Tolas Essayeur - Fondeur", that the balance 31 gold bars containing the markings -" Johnson Matthey London - 999.0 - 10 Tolas ". These markings are admittedly foreign markings. Therefore on the face of it, these gold bars can be held to be of foreign origin. The learned Special Public Prosecutor also relied on a ruling of the Kerala High Court reported in 1988 MLJ (Crl.) 120 in the case of Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Vasanthakumar, wherein it has been held that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court, there cannot be any doubt that marking can be taken as a circumstance to infer that the goods were of foreign origin. In yet another ruling of the Supreme Court in rendered in the case of Union of India v. Shyamsunder and Others, their Lordships have held that goods seized were believed to be smuggled goods by the customs officers and the Court is bound to accept the officers when the accused does not prove that the goods were not smuggled goods as required under Section 123 of the Customs Act. Section 123 speaks about burden of proof in certain cases where any goods are seized under this Act in the reasonable belief that they are smuggled goods, the burden of proving that they are not smuggled goods shall be on the person from whose possession, the goods were seized. Therefore, this Section operates against A5 to A8 and it is their burden to show that the goods were not of foreign origin or that they have not smuggled the goods. Therefore, this Section operates against A5 to A8 and it is their burden to show that the goods were not of foreign origin or that they have not smuggled the goods. In the absence of any such proof by them, it can be safely inferred that the gold bars are of foreign origin, especially in view of the specific markings found therein. 21. Learned Sessions Judge finds fault with the evidenc of P.W.2 and says that the wording in Ex. P.4 disclose that it was not prepared by the gold smith, P.W. 2. Ex. P.4 is a mahazar drawn by the officers, wherein it has been stated that P.W. 2 was brought there and he examined the gold bars and so on P.W. 2 himself has stated that he examined them about their purity and told that they were of 22 ct. and their value is about Rs. 48, 41, 232. He has also signed in Ex. P.4. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the evidence of P.W. 2 in weighing or finding out the intrinsic value of the gold concerned. The Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calicut v. V.P. Sayed Mohammed, has held that when the goldsmith was testing the metal bars on touchstone and certifying them to be gold, his testimony cannot be brushed aside on the ground that scientific tests were not carried out and his assessment as to the purity may not however be exact. In this case, Ex. P.13, Chemical Report was marked. Ex. P.13 is the report of the Deputy Chief Assayer, Madras Gold CoD Centre. After describing the markings as well as fineness etc. of the gold bars, the Deputy Chief Assayer is of the opinion that the above samples are of gold and the samples are of foreign origin. While such an unimpeachable evidence has been let in by the prosecution, the defence cannot say that the prosecution has not proved that the gold seized were in this case are of foreign origin. 22. Learned Sessions Judge also says that in the statement given by A4, there is no mention of A5 to A8. It cannot be because A4 cannot know who are all coming in the boat and there names could not have been made known to A4. 22. Learned Sessions Judge also says that in the statement given by A4, there is no mention of A5 to A8. It cannot be because A4 cannot know who are all coming in the boat and there names could not have been made known to A4. These are all trivial grounds on which the learned Sessions Judge has chosen to record the verdict of acquittal. The trial Judge says that there is no link between A1 to A3 as well as A5 to A8. The link is supplied by A4, which, the learned Sessions Judge miserably failed to understand. It was A4 according to A1 to A3, who engaged them and the code word "Raja" as well as lighting of match sticks thrice are the pattern of activities that linked A1 to A3 with A5 to A8 at the instance of A4. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no link between the two sets of accused. A reading of the judgment of the trial Court only shows that he has recorded an order of unmerited acquittal in this case. 23. Section 138A of the Customs Act authorises presumption of culpable mental state on the part of the accused but it shall be a defence for the accused to prove no such mental state existed. This court in the case of Assistant Collector of Customs, Madras v. Govindasamy Ragupathy reported in 1998 (93) ELT 50 (Mad.) = 1997 (2) MWN (Cr.) 205 has held that the burden to prove the non-existence of the presumed culpable mental state is paramount and heavily cast on the accused. It is also a case of appeal against acquittal. 24. The learned senior counsel appearing for the accused/ respondents 1 to 4 contends that there is no proof that what was seized was sent for analysis, since the scientist was not examined. Evidence of scientific experts is admissible under Section 293 of Cr.P.C. and once the documents have been admitted as evidence, the accused has got every right to cross examine the expert. But in this case, no such attempt was made to summon the expert for cross examination during the course of trial and only for the first time before this Court, this point has been raised, that in the absence of scientific expert's evidence, there is no proof that what was seized was sent for chemical analysis. Ex. But in this case, no such attempt was made to summon the expert for cross examination during the course of trial and only for the first time before this Court, this point has been raised, that in the absence of scientific expert's evidence, there is no proof that what was seized was sent for chemical analysis. Ex. P.13 which has been admitted as a piece of evidence without any protest by the accused reads that the gold bars were sent for analysis and the same was analysed and the report has been made. The descriptions in the mahazar Exs. P.1 and P.4 clearly coincide with the details found in Ex. P.13. Therefore, there is ample documentary evidence to show that what was seized was sent for analysis and therefore the contention of the learned counsel has no force at all. 25. Coming to the question of sanction, Section 137 of Customs Act mandates that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence under Section 132, Section 133, Section 134 or Section 135, except with previous sanction of the Commissioner of Customs. The Additional Collector of Customs, Madurai has accorded sanction under Section 137(1) of the Customs Act and the sanction order has been marked as Ex. P.14. The learned senior counsel appearing for the accused/respondents contended that the sanction order is not a speaking order in this case, therefore, the prosecution is vitiated. According to him, there was no subjective satisfaction and application of mind by the sanctioning authority. To strengthen his argument, he relies on various rulings of the Supreme Court as well as the High Courts in connection with sanction that could be accorded for offence under Prevention of Corruption Act. In the case of Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of Andhra Pradesh, it has been held as follows :It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that a valid sanction has been granted by the Sanctioning Authority after it was satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out constituting the offence. This should be done in two ways; either (1) by producing the original sanction which itself contains the facts constituting the offence and the grounds of satisfaction and (2) by adducing evidence aliunde to show the facts placed before the Sanctioning Authority and the satisfaction arrived at by it. This should be done in two ways; either (1) by producing the original sanction which itself contains the facts constituting the offence and the grounds of satisfaction and (2) by adducing evidence aliunde to show the facts placed before the Sanctioning Authority and the satisfaction arrived at by it. Any case instituted without a proper sanction must fail because this being a manifest defect in the prosecution, the entire proceedings are rendered void ab initio. What the court has to see is whether or not the Sanctioning Authority at the time of giving sanction was aware of the facts constituting the offence and applied its mind for the same any subsequent fact which may come into existence after the grant of sanction is wholly irrelevant. The grant of sanction is not an idle formality or an acrimonious exercise but a solemn and sacrosanct act which affords protection to Government servants against frivolous prosecutions and must therefore be strictly complied with before any prosecution can be launched against the public servant concerned. As against the abovesaid ruling, the learned Special Public Prosecutor relied on a ruling of this Court reported in 1953 AIR(Madras) 785 in the case of The Public Prosecutor v. G. Sadagopan, wherein it has been held that -" All that the order of sanction must show is that all relevant materials were placed before the authority sanctioning the prosecution and that the authority considered those materials and the order sanctioning prosecution resulted therefrom. The sanction need not set out the reasons for the sanction. The object of this sanction is nothing more than to ensure the discouragement of frivolous, doubtful and impolitic prosecutions. "Learned Special Public Prosecutor also referred to a ruling of the Supreme Court reported in 1995 SCC(Crl) 1095 rendered in the case of Superintendent of Police v. Deepak Chowdhary and Others, wherein it has been held as follows :The grant of sanction is only an administrative function, though it is true that the accused may be saddled with the liability to be prosecuted in a court of law. What is material at that time is that the necessary facts collected during investigation constituting the offence have to be placed before the sanctioning authority and it has to consider the material. What is material at that time is that the necessary facts collected during investigation constituting the offence have to be placed before the sanctioning authority and it has to consider the material. Prima facie, the authority is required to reach the satisfaction that the relevant facts would constitute the offence and then either grant or refuse to grant sanction." Another ruling reported in 1970 CRL. L.J. 674 rendered in the case of Gurubachan Singh v. State, was also relied on by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, wherein it has been stated as follows : The intention of the legislature in providing for a sanction in respect of the offences covered by Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is merely to afford a reasonable protection to the public servants in the discharge of their official functions. It is not the object of the section that a public servant who is guilty of the particular offence mentioned in that section should escape the consequences of his criminal act by raising the technical plea of invalidity of sanction. The section is a safeguard for the innocent and is not a shield for the guilty. "Yet another ruling was cited by the Special Public Prosecutor reported in the case of State of Bihar and Another v. P.P. Sharma, IAS, wherein it has been held as follows :" The sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C., is not an empty formality. It is essential that the provisions therein are to be observed with complete strictness. The object of obtaining sanction is that the authority concerned should be able to consider for itself the material before the Investigating Officer, before it comes to the conclusion that the prosecution in the circumstances be sanctioned or forbidden. To comply with Section 197 it must be proved that the sanction was given in respect of the facts constituting the offence charged. It is desirable that the facts should be referred to on the face of the sanction. Section 197 does not require the sanction to be in any particular form. If the facts constituting the offence charged are not shown on the fact of the sanction, it is open to the prosecution, if challenged, to prove before the court that those facts were placed before the sanctioning authority. Section 197 does not require the sanction to be in any particular form. If the facts constituting the offence charged are not shown on the fact of the sanction, it is open to the prosecution, if challenged, to prove before the court that those facts were placed before the sanctioning authority. It should be clear from the form of the sanction that the sanctioning authority considered the relevant material placed before it and after a consideration of all the circumstances of the case it sanctioned the prosecution.In the present case the investigation was complete on the date of sanction and police reports had been filed before the Magistrate. The sanctioning authority has specifically mentioned in the sanction order that the papers and the case diary were taken into consideration before granting the sanction. Case diary is a complete record of the police investigation. It contains total material in support or otherwise of the allegations. The sanctioning authority having taken the case diary into consideration before the grant of sanction it cannot be said that there was non-application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority. It is nobody's case that the averment in the sanction order to the effect that case diary was taken into consideration by the competent authority is incorrect. "On the guidelines as propounded by the abovesaid ruling of the Apex Court, when we look at the sanction accorded in this case, the Sanction order shows application of mind by the Sanctioning Authority and also his subjective satisfaction. The sanction order at the begining says that the records of the case and facts and materials placed before the sanctioning authority were perused, though it has not been stated what records have been placed. It appears all the records of the case and all the materials have been placed before the sanctioning authority. It further says that the offence was in connection with the seizure of 120 gold bars with foreign markings weighing 13.992 kgs. Valued at Rs. 48, 41, 232/- 19 new fishing nets and 4 old fishing nets all with ropes valued at Rs. 69, 155/-, a Sri Lankan launch valued at Rs. 1, 75, 000/- and a country boat (Vallam) valued at Rs. 25, 000/- and 100 litres of diesel valued at Rs. 400/- totally valued at Rs. 51, 10, 787/-. Valued at Rs. 48, 41, 232/- 19 new fishing nets and 4 old fishing nets all with ropes valued at Rs. 69, 155/-, a Sri Lankan launch valued at Rs. 1, 75, 000/- and a country boat (Vallam) valued at Rs. 25, 000/- and 100 litres of diesel valued at Rs. 400/- totally valued at Rs. 51, 10, 787/-. Moreover, it is in the evidence of P.W. 1 that he produced all the files before the sanctioning authority. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the sanctioning authority has not applied his mind. In the case reported in, the Apex Court has held that the Sanctioning Authority has specifically mentioned in the sanction order that the papers and the case diary were taken into consideration before granting the sanction. Case diary is a complete record of the police investigation. It contains total material in support or otherwise of the allegations. The sanctioning authority having taken the case diary into consideration before the grant of sanction it cannot be said that there was non-application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority. Here also all the records have been sent to the Sanctioning Authority as per the evidence of P.W.1., The Superintendent of Customs and all the records and materials were perused by the sanctioning authority. Therefore, this ruling squarely applies to the facts of the present case; With regard to the object of section, it has been fairly held by the Apex. Court in the case reported in 1970 Crl. L.J. 674 cited supra that it is not the object of the section that a public servant who is guilty of the particular offence mentioned in that section should escape the consequences of his criminal act by raising the technical plea of invalidity of sanction, but the sanction is a safeguard for the innocent and is not a shield for the guilty. 26. Looking at the background of this case, in which 120 gold bars of foreign origin and 23 fishing nets of foreign origin were seized. Section 137 which mandates sanction should not be interpreted in their favour for their escape from the consequences of criminal act by raising a technical plea of invalidity of sanction. Sanction being a safeguard for the innocent persons, it should not be treated as a shield for the guilty. Section 137 which mandates sanction should not be interpreted in their favour for their escape from the consequences of criminal act by raising a technical plea of invalidity of sanction. Sanction being a safeguard for the innocent persons, it should not be treated as a shield for the guilty. The learned Sessions Judge while dealing with this aspect of the matter relied on a ruling reported in 1980 MLJ 748, where the learned Judge held that the grounds of satisfaction do not find place in the sanction order. Unfortunately, the latest ruling of the Apex Court reported in was not brought to the notice of the learned Judge. His Lordship Justice Kuldip Singh has held as follows :" The Sanctioning Authority has specifically mentioned in the sanction order that the papers and the case diary were taken into consideration before granting the sanction. Case diary is a complete record of the police investigation. It contains total material in support or otherwise of the allegations. The Sanctioning Authority having taken the case diary into consideration before the grant of sanction, it cannot be said that there was non application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority. "Here in this case, as stated already, the entire records and all the materials have been forwarded to the sanctioning authority with a request to accord sanction as per the evidence of P.W.1. As per Ex. P.14. the sanction order, it is clear that all the records were perused by the sanctioning authority. Therefore, the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that the sanction order was not proper is necessarily to he nullified. 27. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4 relied on a ruling of the High Court of Orissa rendered in the case of Doki Sriramulu v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Customs and Another reported in 1998 E.C.C, 110, wherein it has been held that, a sanction which itself exhibited non application of mind was vitiated in the eyes of law. And in that case, on the face of it, the order of the Collector, Central Excise did not sanction prosecution under Section 135 of the Act for which the petitioner was convicted. This ruling is not at all applicable to the present case, because the sanction order as found in Ex. And in that case, on the face of it, the order of the Collector, Central Excise did not sanction prosecution under Section 135 of the Act for which the petitioner was convicted. This ruling is not at all applicable to the present case, because the sanction order as found in Ex. P.14 is very categoric that in excise of powers conferred on the sanctioning authority under Section 137(1) of the Customs Act, Sanction was accorded for filing a complaint for offences under Section 135(1)(a), 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act r/w. Section 13 Clause 1 and 67 of Foreign Exchange and Regulations Act and Section 3 of Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, against all these accused. Therefore, the ruling has no effect on the facts of the present case. Learned Senior Counsel also relies on another ruling of this Court reported in 1992 (51) ELT 397 (Mad.) rendered in the case of Assistant Collector of Customs v. Tey Teck Seng. On facts, this Court has held that the sanctioning authority could not have applied his mind and granted sanction because the records in that case sent to the sanctioning authority were only the mahazars statement of the accused and the green card ticket. All other relevant records were not placed before the sanctioning authority. On that ground, this Court has held that the sanction order was bad in law, but in this case, on facts, all the records and all the materials were placed before the sanctioning authority for his consideration and he also stated in that sanction order that he perused all the records. This ruling is also not applicable to the facts of the present case From the various rulings cited above, the import of sanction appears to be that sanction is required not for the purpose of enabling the real accused to escape from the offence, but for the purpose of only safeguarding the innocent from frivolous prosecution. Therefore, before prosecuting the persons, the sanctioning authority is expected to apply his mind to hold whether it is a fit case to prosecute. But here is a case, where the facts would reveal the heinous crime committed by these accused, which would have adverse effect on the economy of the country itself. Therefore, before prosecuting the persons, the sanctioning authority is expected to apply his mind to hold whether it is a fit case to prosecute. But here is a case, where the facts would reveal the heinous crime committed by these accused, which would have adverse effect on the economy of the country itself. Therefore, too much of strain to discredit the sanction order is not permissible in the circumstances of the case and the rulings of the Apex Court squarely apply to the facts of the present case and therefore I hold that the sanction is a valid one in the eye of law. 28. Coming to the nature of the offence committed by these accused, insofar as A5 to A8 are concerned, there is no difficulty in holding that they were found to be in possession of 120 gold bars as well as 23 fishing nets all of foreign origin, which according to Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, is punishable. Section 135(1)(b) reads that if any person acquires possession of or is in any way concerned in carrying, removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing or in any other manner dealing with any goods which he knows or has reasons to believe are liable to confiscation under Section 111, shall be punishable. Since these four accused were found exclusively in possession of the abovesaid goods of foreign origin that are liable to be confiscated under Section 111 of the Customs Act, they are held guilty for an offence under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act. Insofar as, Accused 1 to 4 are concerned, the proof of offence against them is that A1 to A3 at the instance of A4 went to the sea coast and were waiting for the arrival of the Sri Lankan launch from where they have to receive the gold bars to be handed over to A4. All these accused 1 to 4 cannot be said to be the principal of offenders, who could be said to be knowingly concerned in any fraudulent evasion or attempted evasion of any duty chargeable thereon and therefore, they cannot held guilty for an offence under Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act. The next aspect is as to whether they can be held guilty of an offence under Section 135(1)(b) of the said Act. The next aspect is as to whether they can be held guilty of an offence under Section 135(1)(b) of the said Act. The said provision reads that any person, who acquires possession or in any way concerned in carrying, removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing or in any other manner dealing with the goods, which he knows or has reasons to believe are liable to confiscation under Section 111, shall be punishable. A1 to A3 have not received possession of those goods from A5 to 8 as per the facts of this case. It cannot also be said that they are concerned in carrying, removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping, selling or purchasing those goods. The last limb of the abovesaid provision deals with persons in any other manner dealing with such goods. But the term "deal with" has been described in Concise Oxford Dictionary as "have relations with a commercial context" or "take measures concerning" or" take part in commercial trading of a commodity. In the business jargon, a dealer can deal with the goods even without touching the goods and without taking possession of the goods by mere transactions even through telephonic messages. Therefore, to prove the element of "dealing with any goods", it is not necessary that one should come into possession of those goods or he should necessarily either carry or keep those goods. In such a way, the accused 1 to 3 & 4 were proved to have been engaged in dealing with those foreign goods, though the goods have not reached them. As per the evidence adduced by all these 4 accused namely, A1 to A4, it was A4, who engaged A1 to A3 for the purpose of taking the goods from A5 to A8 to A4, who in turn is supposed to hand them over to one Abdullah. In the business line, this agreement between these accused really amounts to a business transaction, since all these accused were paid for their job. It is in their statements that already thrice, they have done this job for profit. Therefore, it can be safely held that A1 to A4 have committed the offence of dealing with these goods as contemplated under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act. It is in their statements that already thrice, they have done this job for profit. Therefore, it can be safely held that A1 to A4 have committed the offence of dealing with these goods as contemplated under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act. Insofar as A5 to A8 are concerned, since they were found to be exclusively in possession of those goods, they are found guilty of an offence under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act.29. In a case of appeal against acquittal, after going through the evidence, if two views are possible then it may not be permissible for this Court to set aside the order of acquittal merely because another view can be taken. But here is a case where the judgment of the trial Court in acquitting all these accused attracts the mischief of perversity resulting in miscarriage of justice. Therefore, to extend the arm of law, to set aside an order of acquittal, in such circumstances, it is the bounden duty of this Court to meet the ends of justice and to correct the miscarriage already committed. Only in that way the order of learned Judge is liable to be set aside. 30. In the result, the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge is hereby set aside and all these accused 1 to 8 are held guilty of an offence under Section 135 (1)(b) of the Customs Act. 31. Post the case for questioning the accused regarding sentence, on 11-1-2001.