ORDER K. Govindarajulu , J.—The revision is under Section 397 Cr.P.C. challenging the conviction upheld in Criminal Appleal No. 103/2003 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-lV, Bangalore. By the said order, learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-IV has confirmed conviction recorded in C.C. No. 414/1999, dated 17-1-2003/24-1-2003. The case of the prosecution is that accused was found in possession of foreign currencies worth Rs.14,62,765.50. When he was checked on 18-5-1995 at Bangalore International Airport thereby, the accused has committed an offence under Section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The presence of the accused is secured by the learned Magistrate, the plea of the accused is recorded. P.Ws. 1 to 3 are examined. Ex.P.1 to 6 are marked. The learned Magistrate has believed the case of the prosecution, convicted the accused for the offence complained of by the complainant/ Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore. 3. The learned Senior Advocate Shri Kiran S. Javali for the accused vehemently submit the following grounds for the consideration by the Court :- (1) The State has placed reliance on Seizure Mahazar, it is a case instituted on a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. So. it is for the State to prove the necessary elements to bring home the guilt of the accused. In such a situation, the panch witnesses are not examined by the prosecution. Unless the panch witnesses are examined by the prosecution, on the aspect of the seizure at the time of the alleged incident in question, the case as the one putforth is not proved in accordance with law. to substantiate this proposition, the learned Advocate places reliance on the orders of this Court in Criminal Revision Petition No. 168/1977 dated 20-1-1978. (2) He also contends that it is for the State to prove the necessary elements to prove the charges against the accused, the so-called property alleged be seized under the mahazar Ex.P.2 is not produced before the Court. No material is placed to prove the elements of possession of the accused in regard to the so-called currency. (3) Also places reliance on the orders passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 522/1991, dated 16-8-1994, contend that a sanction should be sanctioned with application of mind, whereas, a reading of the sanction order as per Ex.P.1 would disclose cyclostat copy rather than application of mind by the sanctioning authority. (3) Also places reliance on the orders passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 522/1991, dated 16-8-1994, contend that a sanction should be sanctioned with application of mind, whereas, a reading of the sanction order as per Ex.P.1 would disclose cyclostat copy rather than application of mind by the sanctioning authority. (4) Also substantiate to a query by the Court in regard to the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, that unless the prosecution discharges its burden in regard to the proof of the case in accordance with law, question of accused substantiating the same in reply do not arise. (5) Also submit that the evidence of P.W.2 is not reliable, as at one stage he states that the other witness P.W.3 has recorded, at other stage he states that he has recorded. The third version is accused has given it in writing. Further, interesting fact is that it is in a narrative manner, whereas the witness says they went on asking the questions and the accused had replied. If such a version as the one found in the version of P.W.2/P.W.3 has occurred, the voluntary statement could not have been a narrative form. Also submit that charge is not in accordance with law and it is vague. Do not dispute that the statement recorded by the Customs Officer is not a statement under Section 24 of the Evidence Act. 4. In reply learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel Shri Y. Hariprasad supports the findings. Further contend that the material placed by the prosecution would prove the ingredients for the offences complained of by the State. Also substantiates contending that for the first time before this Court, the submission on the aspect of charge is urged, the question being a question of fact, the same cannot be entertained by this Court. So pray for dismissal of the revision petition. 5. A careful consideration of the scope of the revision under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C would probablize that the Court should find that there is an illegality committed by the lower Courts in dealing with the subject placed before the Court. In other words the Court sitting in a revision is not an Appellate Court. 6. The point that arises for consideration is as under : Whether the conviction recoded by the learned Presiding Officer, Special Court in C.C. No. 414/1999 confirmed by the Presiding Officer. In other words the Court sitting in a revision is not an Appellate Court. 6. The point that arises for consideration is as under : Whether the conviction recoded by the learned Presiding Officer, Special Court in C.C. No. 414/1999 confirmed by the Presiding Officer. Fast Track Court-IV in Criminal Appeal No.103/2003 requires interference at the hands of this Court? 7. This Court in Sivhamurtrhy Swamy v. Agodi Songanno reported in AIR 1969 Mysore 12 has held that the evidence is recorded to find out the truth to the best of one's ability. 8. Apex Court in Lt. Governor Net and others v. Ved Prakash @ Vedu (Appeal (Criminal) No. 530/2006, decided on 5-5-2006) while dealing with personal liberty, the duty of the court to find out the proof of the offence has held as follows : "The High Court and this Court would undoubtedly jealously guard the fundamental rights of a citizen. While exercising the jurisdiction rested in them invariably, the Courts would make all attempts to uphold the human right of the proceedee. The fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India undoubtedly must be safeguarded. But while interpreting the provisions of a statute like the present one and in view of the precedents operating in the field, the Court may examine the records itself so as to satisfy its conscience not only for the purpose that the procedural safeguards available to the proceedee have been provided but also for the purpose that the witnesses have disclosed their apprehension about deposing in Court truthfully and fearfully because of the activities of the proceedee. Once such a satisfaction is arrived at, the superior Court will normally not interfere with an order of externment. The Court in any recent would not direct the authorities to either disclose the names of the witnesses or the number of cases where such witnesses were examined for the simple reason that they may lead to causing of further harm to them. The Court in any recent would not direct the authorities to either disclose the names of the witnesses or the number of cases where such witnesses were examined for the simple reason that they may lead to causing of further harm to them. In a given case, the number of prosecution witnesses may not be many and the proceedee as an accused in the said case is expected to know who were the witnesses who had been examined on behalf of the prosecution and, thus, the purpose of maintaining the secrecy as regards identity of such persons may be defeated, The Court must remind itself that the law is not mere logic but is required to be supplied on the basis of its experience." 9. The case is instituted on a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. In the complaint, the complainant contends that on 18-5-1995. officers of DRI at Bangalore, kept surveillance in Bangalore International Airport at about 3.15 a.m. intercepted a passenger who was intending to go Singapore from Bangalore. Then the named accused on enquiry by the DRI staff has given information in regard to his Passport bearing No. Q740871, dated 21-10-1993. it was a passport issued form Madras Office. The accused was having an Air India ticket bearing No. 098: 4209:827:387: 3. His baggage was checked to under Baggage tag no. A1951115. He was also carrying a hand bag. It is the first accused that has identified the baggage. 10. Thereafter it is the case of the complainant that the officers of DRI noticed that the bottom portion of the mango box was tampered. There they found 22 foreign currencies in a polythene sheet. Thereafter, on opening the said plastic cover, they could find foreign currencies worth Rs.4,16,656.50 travellers cheques valued at Rs.2,56,885.50. 11. Thereafter, it is the further case of the complainant they had got eased from the accused in the toilet at the Airport, a plastic bag. The said plastic bag was cleaned by the accused. Accused has handed over the same to the DRI. on verification of the said plastic bag, it contained a Travellers cheques of Indian value at Rs.7,89,225/-. The accused was not in a position to provide any documents for acquiring the said foreign currency. So, the complainant contends that the accused had committed an offence under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. 12. on verification of the said plastic bag, it contained a Travellers cheques of Indian value at Rs.7,89,225/-. The accused was not in a position to provide any documents for acquiring the said foreign currency. So, the complainant contends that the accused had committed an offence under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. 12. After framing of the charge, the learned Magistrate has permitted the complainant to lead evidence. P.W.I examined is the complainant. He states that he has received sanction as per Ex.P.1 and therefore, he has filed a complaint. P.W.2 is the officer, who is said to have translated the voluntary statement given by accused 1 to English as per Ex.P. 3. P.W. 3. is the investigating Officer, who is said to have identified the accused found the foreign currency totally valued at Rs.14,62,766.50/- 13. In the cross-examination the suggestion to the witness - P.W.3 is (for better appreciation, it is extracted) as follows : "It is false to say that we have not seized the foreign currency and Travellers cheque from the accused. It is false to say that we forcibly took the accused to our office and created documents against him". The first challenge by the learned Defence Counsel is that property said to be seized by P.W.3 is not produced or identified before the Court. So, the case has to fail. The suggestion to the witness extracted supra would show the accused being found in possession of the foreign currency is to the knowledge of the accused. If it is the case of the accused that the said foreign currency is not produced, it gives a reasonable apprehension in regard to the proof of the case of the prosecution or reasonable doubt in regard to the case of the prosecution, then suggestion could not have been there. The suggestion extracted supra would clearly probabilize the simultaneous happenings on the Administrative side of the Customs office is within the knowledge of the accused. 14. Further, Ex.P.1 is the sanction order relied by P.W.I. Ex.P.1 is marked without any objection. If it is the case of the accused that Ex.P.1. is not a sanction in accordance with law, atleast there should be an indication at the time of marking of the document raising objection for the marking of the sanction order. No such objection is raised by the Defence Counsel. 15. If it is the case of the accused that Ex.P.1. is not a sanction in accordance with law, atleast there should be an indication at the time of marking of the document raising objection for the marking of the sanction order. No such objection is raised by the Defence Counsel. 15. A perusal of the Ex.P.1 would clearly probablize that sanctioning officer has stated that he has verified and has accepted the case of the DRI of P.W.3 finding in his investigation the accused in possession of foreign currency along with Indian currencies and Travellers cheques. So, the submission that the so-called foreign currency said to be seized is not produced, so, the case of the prosecution cannot be relied is rejected. 16. The next submission of the learned Advocate for the accused is that unless the prosecution substantiates/proves its case, explaining under Section 106 of the Evidence Act by the accused do not arise. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the entire process of finding the currency is from a card board box containing the mangoes. So, there is no evidence that is brought out from the person of the accused, so that person has to explain under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. This could have been accepted but for the positive stand of P.W.3 that after collecting the foreign currencies form the cardboard box containing the mangoes, the accused was sweating. So he further enquired, thereafter, the accused was taken to the toilet and the accused while coming out of the toilet has brought in a plastic cover that contained foreign currency. Thereafter he took the possession of the foreign currency. This latter part of the investigation asserted by P.W.3 is not at all controverted. So the submission of the learned Senior Advocate that there is no material placed by the prosecution to link the possession of the mango box with the accused cannot be accepted. 17. One more reason that is found in the facts of the case is that it is the positive case of P.W.3 that he questioned the accused to collect the passport, collect the air ticket and then checked the mango box. By the time he checked the mango box with an item that was checked in as the luggage at the receiving counter of the Air India, the check in number given is AI951115. By the time he checked the mango box with an item that was checked in as the luggage at the receiving counter of the Air India, the check in number given is AI951115. None of these surrounding circumstances which are found along with the accused are not challenged. 18. The next challenge is in regard to the non-examination of the panch witnesses. The Apex Court in Mon Bora @ Bijay Bora v. State of Assam reported in 2002 Crl. L.J. 740 has held as follows : "A conviction can be based on testimony of a single eye witness and that there is no rule or evidence which says to the contrary, provided, the sole witness passes the test of reliability. So long as the single witness is wholly reliable witness, the Courts have no difficulty in basing conviction on his testimony alone. In the facts of the case, the version of P.W.3 reveal certain circumstances namely, (1) finding of the accused; (2) finding his passport, (3) finding of the intended Air India ticket which he intended to take off; (4) finding of the check-in-luggage with tag bearing no.951115. In the presence of two panchas, P.W. 3 claims that he has verified the box containing the mangoes. So, the Court is obliged to peruse the records while hearing the case. Ex.P. 2 marked is the mahazar. The mahazar contains four pages narration. In the course of the evidence, the mahazar is marked as Ex.P.2. signature of the accused is marked as Ex.P. 2(d). The learned Senior Advocate admits that Ex.P. 2(d) is the signature of the accused. At the earliest point of time that is the initiation of the law into motion, the happenings, the evidence collected from the accused is put to the accused, as he has received the mahazar. So, the Court is obliged to ask the learned Senior Advocate about the impact of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The narration of the submissions would probabilize absolutely there is no reply in consonance with Section 106 of the Evidence Act. So, the assertion that the panchas have to be examined as the one relied by the learned Advocate in the ruling of this court in Crl.R.P.No. 161/1997 is not attracted. It is also settled law that the criminal case has to be decided on facts. So, the assertion that the panchas have to be examined as the one relied by the learned Advocate in the ruling of this court in Crl.R.P.No. 161/1997 is not attracted. It is also settled law that the criminal case has to be decided on facts. In a case decided by this court in Mahalingappa v. Kenchamma reported in ILR 2004 kar 4689, this Court has held as follows : "In criminal cases normally the law of precedent is not applicable, as facts of each case always differ with another except in respect of technical pleas like jurisdiction limitation etc., any pronouncement whether of Apex Court or High Court in a criminal cases is mainly based on appreciation of evidence in our view, may not have the effect of binding precedent but have to be considered as guidelines or guiding principles of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 19. So, the criminal case has to be decided on facts and there is no precedent. So, I am of the considered opinion the reasoning of the Court in CrI.R.P.NO.168/1977 is not attracted to the facts of the case. 20. The next submission by the learned advocate for the accused is in regard to the sanction. The learned Advocate places reliance on the orders of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 522/1991, dated 16-8-1994. It is true this Court in this appeal was considering the sanction accorded to when the accused was found in a bus stand at Belgaum with certain gold. But in the facts of the case, when Ex.P.1 is marked without any objection, sanction is not a sanction in accordance with law cannot be urged again, if the accused was disputing the sanction or the legality of the sanction, he could have spelt out by objecting marking of Ex.P. 1. Having not done so, the submission that the sanction accorded is not in accordance with law and there is no application of mind, urged by the learned Advocate for the accused is without any merit so, it is rejected. 21. The next ground of attack is in regard to the framing of the charge. A careful consideration of the charge would disclose that the learned Magistrate has recorded Section 135(1)(ii) but has not stated about the sub-clause(b). If the non-mentioning of sub-clause(b) has prejudiced the defence, definitely this Court has to accept the same. 21. The next ground of attack is in regard to the framing of the charge. A careful consideration of the charge would disclose that the learned Magistrate has recorded Section 135(1)(ii) but has not stated about the sub-clause(b). If the non-mentioning of sub-clause(b) has prejudiced the defence, definitely this Court has to accept the same. The portions of the suggestion narrated supra while considering the other submissions would probabilize that the accused has understood the case of the prosecution, that accused is charged for possessing foreign currency along with Indian currency, that he has not produced the required authentication or permit of possessing the said currency. So, the submission that the charge framed is not in consonance with the mandate under Section 216 Cr.P.C. is without any merit. So, it is rejected. The next submission of the learned Advocate for the accused is that the complaint is under Section 200 of Cr.P.C; complainant has to substantiate the case and cannot look back to the defence. This submission is aptly correct. There is no dispute in regard to this submission. The point would be which part of the complaint filed under Section 200 is silent, what is lacking in the complaint or what is not substantiated in evidence in consonance with the complaint is not forthcoming. So, the submission that complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. has to be proved independently without looking into the defence of the Counsel though accepted, there being no material placed by the defence Counsel lacking of the evidence in the facts of the case is liable to be rejected. So, the submissions addressed by the learned Senior Advocate Shri Kiran S. Javali are rejected. The submissions addressed by Shri Y. Hariprasad, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel are accepted. The revision petition is without any merit is dismissed.