While affirming the conviction of the appellants passed by the Trial Court, the Supreme Court has held that the quantum of sentence could be modified in the interest of justice based on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The Court reasoned that considering the totality of circumstances, including the significant lapse of time since the offence (nearly four decades), the advanced age of the surviving appellants, the prolonged pendency of proceedings, the period of incarceration already undergone by them is more than the statutory minimum sentence of six months contemplated under the proviso to Section 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 as it then existed.
The Court, therefore, opined that directing the appellants to serve further imprisonment would be unduly harsh and would not subserve the ends of justice. Exercising its discretion, the Court reduced the sentence of the appellants to the period they had already served in custody.
A Two-Judge Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta noted that the appellants’ primary contention, that a conviction cannot be based solely on statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, had already been rejected by the High Court. The Bench concurred with the High Court’s finding that such statements, if made voluntarily, are admissible in evidence and are not barred by the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
The Bench observed that the appellants had failed to provide any material to prove that the statements were obtained under coercion or threat. Further, the conviction was not based merely on confessional statements. It noted the High Court’s finding that these statements had led to the discovery of incriminating material, including contraband and money, which was documented through panchnamas and corroborated by the testimony of Customs Officers. This constituted independent and relevant corroborative evidence.
Consequently, the Bench found that the concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the trial court, appellate court, and the High Court did not suffer from any perversity, illegality, or manifest error that would warrant interference.
On the question of sentencing, the Bench noted that the incident occurred in 1985, nearly four decades ago, and the smuggled goods were recovered in an abandoned condition, with conscious possession not being attributed to the appellants. It was also undisputed that some co-accused had been acquitted, two of the appellants had passed away during the pendency of the appeals, and the surviving appellants were of advanced age.
Briefly, the prosecution’s case originated from secret intelligence received by Customs officers at Mandvi, indicating that prohibited smuggled foreign wrist watches were concealed near a fisherman’s jetty. Acting on this information, on April 30, 1985, Customs officers, along with two independent panch witnesses, conducted a search and excavated two pits on a newly laid road. From these pits, they recovered two jute sacks which were found to contain a total of 777 foreign-made wrist watches and 879 wrist watch straps, with an estimated value of Rs. 2.22 Lakh. A seizure panchnama was prepared, and the goods were confiscated under the Customs Act, 1962, based on the reasonable belief that they were illegally imported.
Further investigation revealed that the goods were smuggled into India in February 1985 on the ship Safina-Tul-Firdaus H.M.V. 643. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were identified as the owners of the ship, and accused No. 3 was its captain. Other accused persons were alleged to have participated in concealing, storing, transporting, and selling the smuggled goods. The prosecution alleged that all accused knowingly dealt with smuggled goods liable for confiscation, thereby committing an offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962.
A criminal complaint was filed against 21 accused persons, and the trial court convicted accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 11, sentencing them to three years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine. This conviction and sentence were upheld by the appellate court and subsequently by the High Court in revision.
Appearances:
Senior Advocate Amar Dave, AORs P. S. Sudheer and Ravi Panwar, along with Advocates Rishi Maheshwari, Anne Mathew, Bharat Sood, Jai Govind M J, Jashan Vir Singh, and Yadunandan Bansal, for the Appellant
AORs Swati Ghildiyal, Deepanwita Priyanka, and Arvind Kumar Sharma, for the Respondent
