HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2127 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against order of acquittal of A.1 and A.2/respondents 1 and 2 recorded by the lower Court of the offence under Section 135(1)(b)(ii) of the Customs Act. Graveman of charge against the accused is that A.1 imported second hand spinning machinery for 70,000 U.S. Dollars from Germany but misdeclared the value as 40,000 U.S.Dollars for the purpose of payment of customs duty and evaded duty on 30,000 U.S.Dollars. Out of the alleged evaded customs duty to the tune of Rs.6,43,031/-, the accused paid Rs.4,21,484/- in three instalments on 20.07.1993, 26.8.1993 and 23.08.1993. It is alleged that still evaded customs duty to the tune of Rs.2,81,547/- remained unpaid. The lower Court recorded acquittal mainly on the ground of non-production of original invoice for 70,000 U.S.Dollars which was collected by the Officers of the complainant from the accused. The lower Court further commented that the prosecution did not examine any Bank Officer and did not collect any bank records to show that the accused had really paid 70,000 U.S.Dollars for purchase of the machinery and not 40,000 U.S.Dollars as claimed by the accused at the time of release of machinery from the Inland container Depot, Hyderabad. Though in the grounds of appeal, it was stated by the appellant that original duplicate invoice for purchase of the machinery was filed, the lower Court erred in noting the same as photostat copy (Xerox copy) of the invoice. Physical verification of the invoice which is filed by the prosecution in the lower Court and which is marked as Ex.P.18 reveals that it is neither original invoice nor original duplicate invoice, but it is only photostat copy of duplicate invoice. Therefore, the comment made by the lower Court in this regard is proper and correct. When the complainant seeks to punish the accused under criminal law, the complainant cannot get the relief by filing photostat copies of documents which are inadmissible in evidence. No reason is put forward by the prosecution as to why original of Ex.P.18 duplicate copy could not be filed before the lower Court. In case original of Ex.P.18 is filed before any other Court or Tribunal or adjudicating machinery, the prosecution could have taken steps for summoning the original duplicate copy seized by Officers of the complainant. In the absence of taking such steps, the complainant cannot expect conviction of the accused by filing mere Photostat copy of the crucial document. The reasoning and conclusion arrived by the lower Court in this case is legal and I do not find any grounds to come to a different conclusion in this appeal. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. ____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Dt. 21st December, 2011. PNV