1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.39 OF 2006 Asst. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) New Customs House, Mormugao, Harbour, Goa. ... Appellant. Versus Mr. Anthony Sebastian L D'Souza House No.1339, St Sebastian Waddo, Anjuna, Bardez, Goa. ... Respondent. Mr.Joseph Vaz, Special Public Prosecutor, for the Appellant. Mr. J. Godinho, Advocate for the respondent. Coram :- S. A. BOBDE, J. Date : - 27th March, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant was prosecuted for contravention of Section 111(d) (l) (m) of the Customs Act, 1962. He has been acquitted. 2. The prosecution was in respect of the contents of the container imported by the Respondent. He had declared that it contains household goods worth about Rs.94,000/-. However, when opened it was found to contain the goods worth approximately Rs.12 Lacs in contravention as such Mobile Phones, Perfumes, Camera etc. The respondent had no licence for import under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. 2 3. In the trial, the prosecution i.e. the appellant examined 5 witnesses. The fifth witness was the Investigating Officer, Pramod Buniyam. 4. Mr. Vaz, the learned Counsel for the prosecution appellant has strongly objected to the acquittal of the respondent on the ground that the trial Court has totally ignored the evidence of the Investigating Officer, P.W.5 i.e. Buniyam. According to Mr. Vaz, the evidence of that witness who is a Custome Officer is completely admissible in evidence since the officer is not a police officer within the meaning of Criminal Procedure Code and statements made by such an officer are clearly admissible in law. Mr. Godinho, the learned Counsel for the respondent has not been able to refute these propositions. 5. A perusal of the judgment clearly supports the contention of the appellant that there is no discussion of the evidence of Investigating Officer. The learned Trial Judge has merely stated “P.W.5 has investigated the case.” in the judgment in para. 11. The learned Trial Judge is the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Margao. It is difficult to understand how the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate could have made a statement like that and rested, though he was bound by his duty as a Magistrate trying the offence, to consider the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Indeed the credibility of criminal Courts 3 trying an offences rests on discussion of the evidence brought by the prosecution and the reasonings of the Court thereon. There is complete dereliction of duty by the Magistrate in discussing material evidence adduced by the prosecution in a case which requires serious consideration. This dereliction of duty has resulted in an acquittal of the respondent which prima facie appears to be unjustified. 6. In the circumstances, the impugned judgment under appeal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Trial Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law. All the contentions of both the parties are left open. Criminal appeal disposed of accordingly. S. A. BOBDE, J. SMA