1983 (1) TMI 198 - SC - Companies Law

Whether the prosecution had established that smuggled gold bars had been seized from the respondent on August 9, 1969, at the Trichur Railway Station under Ex. P-l? Held that -Appeal allowed. In, the instant case, the respondent had not discharged the burden which lay on him. P.W.1 has stated that the said gold-bars had foreign markings on them and Ex. P-1, the mahazar, corroborated his statement. The respondent had no authorisation to keep the said gold with him. It is in evidence that the said gold bars were found packed in paper and kept in the inside folds of a blanket underneath some clothes in the trunk seized from the respondent. He had taken care to secrete them. He had brought them from Bombay which was a customs area. In the circumstances, his explanation that he had no knowledge that he was in possession of or carrying smuggled gold bars could not be believed, as rightly held by the learned sessions judge. The prosecution had clearly established the guilt of the respondent. The judgment of the High Court is, therefore, liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. The conviction of the respondent and the sentence imposed on him by the learned District Magistrate which were affirmed on appeal by the learned sessions judge are restored.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court of Kerala
- Seizure of gold bars from the respondent at the Trichur Railway Station
- Conviction under section 135(b) of the Customs Act and section 85(ii) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968
- Evidence presented by prosecution witnesses
- High Court's decision to set aside the conviction

Analysis:
The case involves an appeal by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise against the judgment of the High Court of Kerala in a matter concerning the seizure of gold bars from the respondent at the Trichur Railway Station. The respondent was found carrying 28 gold bars with foreign markings, valued at Rs. 56,000, without proper authorization. The prosecution presented evidence through witnesses, including the Inspector of Central Excise and a certified goldsmith, to establish the nature and ownership of the seized gold bars. The respondent claimed that he was unaware of the gold in his possession, stating it was given to him by another person. The District Magistrate convicted the respondent under relevant sections of the Customs Act and the Gold (Control) Act, imposing a fine and a potential prison sentence. The respondent appealed the decision, leading to the High Court setting aside the conviction based on doubts regarding the nature of the seized gold bars.

Upon review, the Supreme Court analyzed the evidence presented by prosecution witnesses, including the Inspector of Central Excise and the certified goldsmith. The respondent's statement under section 342 of the Cr. PC was also considered, where he admitted to the presence of gold in his possession but claimed lack of knowledge about it. The Court emphasized the burden of proof on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court disagreed with the High Court's assessment of the evidence, stating that doubts raised were not substantial enough to warrant setting aside the conviction. The Court highlighted that the respondent's acknowledgment of the gold in his possession, even if claimed to be unaware of its nature initially, was crucial in determining his guilt. The Court also noted the circumstances of the seizure, the lack of authorization, and the manner in which the gold bars were concealed, supporting the prosecution's case.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court's decision, reinstating the conviction and sentence imposed on the respondent by the District Magistrate. The Court found that the prosecution had successfully proven the respondent's guilt under the relevant provisions of the Customs Act and the Gold (Control) Act. The appeal by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise was allowed, and the respondent's conviction was upheld based on the evidence presented and the legal principles governing the case.