8.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that while allowing the appeals, this Court correctly held that the prosecution proved its case beyond any doubt as against the respondents. However, the Honourable Supreme Court of India set aside the order only on the ground that this Court passed a common Judgment against two appeals preferred by the appellant against two separate order of acquittal by two separate trials. Further, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the trial Court acquitted the respondents on the ground that the materials objects were not produced before the trial Court and it is a fatal to the case of the prosecution. The sanctioning authority was not examined by the prosecution, whereas the order of sanction was marked through P.W.2. In fact, the learned trial Judge, inspected the premises where the sandalwood was kept in the office of the appellant. The mahazars were prepared and the same were marked by the prosecution as Ex.P.2, Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.10. In the customs cases, all the materials could not be produced before the trial Court, since it was in large quantum and as such, the mahazar alone is enough to prove that the materials were seized from the accused persons. Further, any statement made before the customs officers is admissible in evidence. During the adjudication process,
