Judgment 1. This order shall dispose of Crl. A. No. 292-SBA of 1997 and 399-SBA of 1997, as both the appeals have arisen against the same judgments/ orders of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 2. The facts which are relevant for the decision of the present appeals are that accused respondents Surjit Singh, Veda Singh and Daljit Singh besides Hardial Singh (declared Proclaimed Offender) were accused respondents in a criminal complaint under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 , filed by the Assistant Collector Customs, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, Amritsar. After hearing both sides and perusing the record, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide judgment and order dated 23-12-1992, convicted the accused respondents under Section 135 read with Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Imports and Exports (Control) Order No. 17/55 amended and issued under Section 3(1) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, and were sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for three months, while the seized watches were ordered to be confiscated to the State which were to be disposed of in accordance with law. Aggrieved against this judgment and order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, the accused respondents Surjit Singh, Veda and Daljit Singh filed two criminal appeals before the Sessions Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, vide judgment dated 9-5-1996, disposed of both the appeals filed by the accused. The appeals were accepted, the judgment and order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate were set aside and the accused were acquitted of the charge framed against them. Aggrieved against this judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the complainant (Assistant Collector Customs) filed the above mentioned appeals against the acquittal of the accused respondents. 3. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant appellant. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the accused respondents and gone through the record carefully. 5. In the grounds of appeal of both the appeals the only ground taken by the complainant appellant is that the Commissioner Customs had properly accorded sanction for prosecution of the accused respondents and that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had not correctly appreciated the sanction given by the Commissioner Customs. 5. In the grounds of appeal of both the appeals the only ground taken by the complainant appellant is that the Commissioner Customs had properly accorded sanction for prosecution of the accused respondents and that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had not correctly appreciated the sanction given by the Commissioner Customs. It was accordingly prayed that the appeals be accepted and the accused respondents be convicted. 6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, while acquitting the accused respondents of the charge framed against them had given various reasons for acquitting them of the charge framed against them. The sanction to prosecute the accused respondents being not proper was one of the grounds on which the accused respondents were acquitted. There were various other grounds on which the learned Additional Sessions Judge had acquitted the accused respondents of the charge framed against them. In Paras 10, 11 and 12 of the judgment dated 9-5-1996, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar various other grounds (other than the sanction being not proper) have been given for acquitting the accused respondents. It was found by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the judgments Ex. DA and Ex. DX, relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused would show that with regard to the same occurrence two other cases were also registered against the accused respondents and in these two cases accused respondents were acquitted by the trial court and for that reason the accused respondents were entitled to acquittal in this case. It was found that the learned Trial Court in the present case had erred in law in convicting the accused respondents by ignoring the aforesaid judgments Ex. DA and Ex. DX. The learned Additional Sessions Judge had also discussed the prosecution evidence and it was held that it would be going too far to place reliance on the prosecution version. Even the confessional statements allegedly made by the accused were ignored on the ground that there was nothing on the record to show that the same were recorded after seeking due permission from the Jail authorities. Taking all these factors into consideration, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had accepted the appeals filed by the accused and had acquitted them of the charge framed against them. 7. Taking all these factors into consideration, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had accepted the appeals filed by the accused and had acquitted them of the charge framed against them. 7. From a perusal of the above, it would be clear that the complainant appellant has not challenged the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge on merits. The only ground taken in the grounds of appeal in this Court is the question of sanction. Even if it is found that the sanction was proper, yet the accused respondents cannot be convicted, in view of the other infirmities in the prosecution case, pointed out by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, which have not been challenged by the complainant appellant in these appeals. 8. In view of the above, in my opinion, there is no merit in these appeals. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed.