Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the order of acquittal dated 010.2003 as also the record of the case. 2. The accused-respondents were put to trial for the offences punishable under Sections 135(1)(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, “the Act, 1962”). The appellant-complainant filed a complaint on 05.01.1993 under Section 135 of the Act, 1962 alleging therein that on Nakabandi, a truck was checked and it is alleged that silver less than 100 kilograms in weight was recovered from the truck. There were two persons in the truck, namely Nimba Ram S/o Kheta Ram and Bhukha alias Dhukha S/o Hajra Meghwal. On being asked, Bhukha alias Dhukha informed that the silver belonged to accused-respondent Birad Dan and he was guarding the same. Before the trial Court, PW. 1 Lalit Paliwal, PW. 2 B.L. Verma, PW. 3 Rajendra Kumbhat, PW. 4 Suresh Kumar Navasiya, PW. 5 Narain Lal, PW. 6 Ravi Malik, PW. 7 Rajiv Sinha, PW. 8 Jawat Raj, PW. 9 B.L. Sharma, PW. 10 Ajay Kumar Ojha and PW. 11 Ridmal Singh were examined. The accused made their statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and denied the occurrence. On appreciation of the evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused-respondents beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly they were acquitted. Hence, this leave to appeal. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and carefully gone through the statement of various witnesses. 4. The complainant came with the case that the department had a secret prior information, on which a Nakabandi was held but the department has failed to place on record the alleged prior secret information. There are serious contradictions between the statements of PW . 1 Lalit Paliwal and PW . 2 B.L. Verma. The complainant failed to produce on record any notice given to the respondents before recording their statement under Section 108 of the Act, 1962. Even in the statement alleged to have been made by the accused-respondents, there is no mention that any notice was given to them for making disclosure information. The statements were not read over to the makers. Further, there are addition, alterations and deletion in the statements, which have also not been established. Even in the statement alleged to have been made by the accused-respondents, there is no mention that any notice was given to them for making disclosure information. The statements were not read over to the makers. Further, there are addition, alterations and deletion in the statements, which have also not been established. The statement of accused-respondent Birad Dan was recorded in question/answer form and there is space left in between the questions put and answer given. The Motbirs of the seizure have turned hostile and they have not supported the prosecution case. So also, PW. 8 Jawat Raj, the goldsmith, has also not supported the prosecution case. The sanction for prosecution (Ex.P. 11) has not been proved as on certain pages, there are no signatures of the sanctioning authority. The accused-respondents came with the specific case that the alleged statements were recorded while they were in custody. 5. The silver is having no foreign mark and it is less than 100 kilograms in weight and as such, the complainant failed to prove that the accused-respondents committed the offence. The person, who had been allegedly guarding the silver, viz. Bhukha alias Dhukha, has not been impleaded as an accused, nor examined as a witness. He has not been produced even in the Court. 6. PW. 1 Lalit Paliwal has stated that they had no prior secret information whereas PW. 2 B.L. Verma has stated that on having received the prior secret information, they held a Nakabandi. The alleged statement of accused Nimba Ram recorded under Section 108 of the Act, 1962 has not been placed on record. There is no cogent and convincing evidence that the accused informed that the said silver is a smuggled article. Moreso, the Panchnama was not prepared at the site itself , as is evident from the statement of PW . 2 B.L. Verma. It has come in the evidence that the Panchnama was prepared subsequently in the office of the complainant. The recovery was not effected in the presence of Motbir witnesses as is evident from the statement of the prosecution witnesses. PW . 11 Ridmal Singh has stated that the statements were not recorded as stated by the makers but the same were recorded as per the choice of the custom officers. The purity of the silver has not been established by the prosecution. There are material addition, alteration and deletion in the Panchnama. PW . 11 Ridmal Singh has stated that the statements were not recorded as stated by the makers but the same were recorded as per the choice of the custom officers. The purity of the silver has not been established by the prosecution. There are material addition, alteration and deletion in the Panchnama. 7. Having found the various infirmitites in the prosecution case, as noticed above, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the complainant has failed to prove the case against the accused-respondents beyond reasonable doubt. The trial Court also came to the conclusion that the place of Nakabandi has been established and the recovery was also suspicious. On close scrutiny of the statements of various witnesses produced by the complainant,I do not find any illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. As such, it is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal 8. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal is rejected and the leave prayed for is refused.