JUDGMENT B.V. Pinto, J.— This appeal is filed by the Asst. Collector of Customs, (Preventive) Mangalore against the order dated 18.4.2002 passed by the I Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mangalore, in C.C. No. 8/1992 acquitting the respondents herein of the offence under Section 135(1)(b)(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 85(1)(A) of the Gold Control Act, 1968. 2. Brief facts of the case are: That the complainant is the Asst. Collector of Customs (Preventive) and the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Mangalore. On receipt of credible information that contraband gold is concealed in Room No. 201 of Hotel Rivera, Mission street, Mangalore, conducted a search of the said premises on 1.12.88 in the presence of the witnesses. It is the case of the prosecution that respondents 1 to 3 were found in the said room No. 201. During the course of search, an old Samsonite pouch and some bundles of currency were found in the drawer of the said room. On opening the said pouch, it found contained five palates of gold of foreign origin. When counted, the currency amounted to Rs. 34,800/-. The goldsmith who tested these gold palates certified that they are 24 carat of purity gold. On weighing those palates, they totally weighed 583 gms valued at Rs. 1,85,000/-. Immediately, a panchanama was drawn and the property was seized. Thereafter, A1 to A3 were produced before the custom officials. It appears that A1 gave a statement saying that he is managing partner of hotel Rivera and that the above pouch was given to him by A-2 and further they gave statement to the effect that A-3 was employed for disposal of the above pouch on the basis of commission. Thus it is alleged that they have contravened the above section of the Customs Act and Gold Control Act. 3. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the complainant has examined four witnesses and got marked Ex. P-1 to P-10 (c) The defence did not examine any witness but got marked Ex. D-1 which is a Lodging Register of Hotel Rivera for the relevant period. 4. After hearing the prosecution and the defence, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mangalore, acquitted the respondents/accused of both the charges levelled against them. Hence, this appeal is by the complainant. 5. P-1 to P-10 (c) The defence did not examine any witness but got marked Ex. D-1 which is a Lodging Register of Hotel Rivera for the relevant period. 4. After hearing the prosecution and the defence, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mangalore, acquitted the respondents/accused of both the charges levelled against them. Hence, this appeal is by the complainant. 5. Heard Sri Jeevan J. Neeralagi for the appellant and Sri Nishchith Shetty for the respondents and perused the materials on record. It is seen from the records that out of four witnesses examined in this case, PW-1 Ramakrishanaiah is the Superintendent in Customs, Mangalore, during the relevant period. In his evidence, he has stated that on 1.12.88 at about 1.30 p.m., he proceeded to Hotel Rivera in Mangalore along with his colleagues and independent witnesses. He had credible information that contraband gold is concealed in room No. 201 of the said hotel. One K.S. Bhat, was Asst. Director of D.R.I at that time. After obtaining search warrant from Asst. Director of DRI, he reached the hotel at about 2.30 p.m., and knocked the door of room No. 201 and A-1 opened the door. After showing search warrant to him, the room was searched and at the time of searching the room, currency notes of Rs. 34.800/- and five gold biscuits were noticed inside the bag. On questioning A-1, he revealed that he is the permanent resident of the said room. When he was further questioned, A-1 informed that A-2 and A-3 are his friends and also informed that for the purpose of doing business in gold, he secured A-2 and A-3 and gold biscuits were brought by A-2 and A-3 was employed for the disposal of gold biscuits. He has further stated that gold biscuits are of foreign origin containing certain markings as mentioned in his evidence before the court. He has further stated that A-1 to A-3 have not produced any documents to show that they have authority to possess these biscuits. The goldsmith by name U Bhasker Shet was summoned and he has certified that the gold examined was of 24 carat purity. A mahazar was drawn which is at Ex. P-1 and signatures of concerned parties were obtained. This PW-1 has been thoroughly cross examined by the defence and it is suggested to him that no such recovery has been made from room No. 201. 6. A mahazar was drawn which is at Ex. P-1 and signatures of concerned parties were obtained. This PW-1 has been thoroughly cross examined by the defence and it is suggested to him that no such recovery has been made from room No. 201. 6. PW-2 Sri Hariprasad Amin was Superintendent during the relevant period. He has stated that on 1.12.88, PW-1 and others have produced before him five golden biscuits of foreign origin and cash of Rs. 34,800/- along with A-1 to A-3. He has further stated that as per Section 108 of Customs Act statement of three persons have been recorded by him as per Exs. P2 to P4. Thereafter, he sent the samples of the gold seized to the Government MINT and obtained the certificate. He received the authorization from the Department to file a complaint against the respondents and accordingly, filed a complaint. 7. PW-3 P. Vijayan is Intelligence Officer, DRI, Mangalore. He states that he has translated Ex. P-1 from English to Malayalam to the accused persons since the accused were not knowing English language. 8. PW-4 is one Abdul Kunji who has turned hostile to the prosecution case and has not supported the prosecution in material aspects. 9. The statement of the accused/respondents was recorded and accused No. 1 has stated in answer to question No. 7 in 313 Cr.P.C. statement that his statement was taken by the customs people by threatening and by beating him and they have seized his own money at that time by force. 10. In this background, Sri Neeralagi, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that as per Section 108 of the Customs Act, the statement given by the accused persons to the Customs Officer as per Ex. P-2 to P-4 are admissible in law and therefore, these statements contain the fact that respondents were in possession of gold biscuits. The learned Counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits referring to the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 that at the relevant time the respondents were in the custody of the customs officer and that the statement was taken either by threat or by promise of some form. Therefore, they cannot be relied upon. So far as recovery of gold is concerned, no independent witness is examined in this case and PW-4 has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Therefore, they cannot be relied upon. So far as recovery of gold is concerned, no independent witness is examined in this case and PW-4 has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Therefore, he submits that the prosecution case is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, Sri Neeralagi, learned Counsel for the complainant further submits that Section 292 of Cr.P.C. provides that the evidence of officers of MINT is relevant and is admissible in law. Further such a report can be produced before the court of law for the purpose of proving the case. 11. The following rulings have been pressed into service by both learned Counsel: 1. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Rajamundry Vs. Duncan Agro Industries Ltd. and Ors., AIR 2000 SC 2901 , 2. Assistant Collector of Customs Vs. Pratap Rao Sait and Anr., (1972) CriLJ 1135 ; 3. Hira H. Advani Etc. Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1971 SC 44 ; 4. Harbansingh Sardar Lenasingh and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others, AIR 1972 SC 1224 12. On a careful examination of Ex. P-6 which speaks to the certificate issued by the MINT, I am of the opinion that the said certificate does not bear any seal of the office from which it is supposed to be originated nor it contain any information of the office where the said certificate was issued. It is further noticed that the said certificate is a stencil cut form where certain information is filled up in hand and neither the person who filled the form in hand nor the person who has signed it has been examined before the court. It also does not bear any details of examination conducted in respect of the gold articles sent to him. Hence, no reliance can be placed on Ex. P-6 to hold that the material seized is gold of foreign origin. 13. So far as the statement of the accused persons recorded in this case, it is the evidence of PW-1 that they have 'produced' A1 to A3 before PW-2 and thereafter PW-2 recorded the statements. Hence, no reliance can be placed on Ex. P-6 to hold that the material seized is gold of foreign origin. 13. So far as the statement of the accused persons recorded in this case, it is the evidence of PW-1 that they have 'produced' A1 to A3 before PW-2 and thereafter PW-2 recorded the statements. It is to be noted that as soon as PW-1 recovers the alleged contraband gold from A1 to A3 and they are made to accompany PW-1 to the office of PW-2, it suggests that A1 to A3 were in custody of PW-1 and he has produced A1 to A3 before PW-2. Further in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused has stated that they were threatened and beaten. Under the circumstances, I hold that the statement alleged to have been made by A1 to A3 is not voluntary and hence, the same cannot be relied on to convict the appellants. 14. Further the only evidence to connect the property with the accused is the occupancy of A1 to A3 of Hotel Room No. 201. While no documents are produced to prove that A1 is the owner of Hotel Rivera. Mangalore. Ex. D-1 produced by the complainant and marked by the accused also does not show or prove that it is the accused who were in occupation of the room on 1.12.1988. 15. Hence, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the judgment of the trial court is sound and proper and does not warrant interference by this Court. 16. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.