1979 (3) TMI 201 - SC - Central Excise

Whether the prosecution case proved against accused Nos. 1 to 13 who were convicted of various offences covered by different counts of the charge and were sentenced in consequence to imprisonment? Held that - In taking the view of the matter that it did the High Court for all practical purposes presumed the accused to be guilty unless they succeeded in establishing their innocence which was not a correct approach to the appreciation of evidence. It was for the prosecution to prove affirmatively that the contraband articles were in the conscious possession of accused Nos. 1 to 11 and that they had received the currency notes in question as claimed by the prosecution neither of these matters was a matter of assumption although of course the same could be inferred from circumstances which in our opinion have not been shown to exist. We do not regard the defence as a bundle of assertions which could not possibly be true within the domain of reason. There is nothing inherently improbable in the currency notes having been found in one or more of the packages which are said to have been lying unaccounted for in the Customs House nor can we agree that the averment about residents of Varor having deposited the said packages in response to a warning issued to them earlier borders on the absurd even though it may not be very probable. Thus as contained in paragraphs 8 and 9 leave the prosecution with no material such as may suffice apart from documents exhibits 31 and 46 to be incriminatory of any of the accused. Accordingly we accept all the appeals reverse the impugned judgment set aside the conviction recorded against and the sentences imposed upon the appellants (being accused Nos. 1 to 11 and 13) and acquit them of the charge in its entirety.

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of confessions under Section 25 of the Evidence Act.
2. Reliability of the prosecution's documentary evidence (Exhibits 31 and 46).
3. The role and conduct of Customs and Excise officials in the alleged conspiracy.
4. The credibility of the defense's explanation for the presence of currency and goods.
5. The High Court's approach to the presumption of guilt and burden of proof.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Admissibility of Confessions under Section 25 of the Evidence Act:
The High Court held that the confessions made by the accused were inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, as they were made in the presence of police officers, thereby rendering them inadmissible. The Supreme Court agreed with this view, stating, "the confessions attributed to the accused are hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act and are inadmissible in evidence."

2. Reliability of the Prosecution's Documentary Evidence (Exhibits 31 and 46):
The Supreme Court scrutinized the reliability of Exhibits 31 and 46, which were central to the prosecution's case. The Court noted several procedural lapses by Ganguli (P.W. 2), including the failure to prepare a panchanama immediately and the lack of authentication of Exhibit 31 until the arrival of senior officers. The Court stated, "We look upon document exhibit P-31 which forms the corner-stone of the prosecution case, with great suspicion." The Court concluded that these documents, along with related oral testimony, were not reliable enough to form the basis of conviction.

3. The Role and Conduct of Customs and Excise Officials in the Alleged Conspiracy:
The prosecution alleged that the Customs and Excise officials conspired with a smuggler (accused No. 13) to allow the smuggling of goods. However, the Supreme Court found the evidence insufficient to support this claim. The Court highlighted the procedural irregularities and the lack of credible evidence to prove that the officials had received illegal gratification. The Court noted, "It was for the prosecution to prove affirmatively that the contraband articles were in the conscious possession of accused Nos. 1 to 11 and that they had received the currency notes in question as claimed by the prosecution."

4. The Credibility of the Defense's Explanation for the Presence of Currency and Goods:
The defense argued that the goods found at the Customs House were deposited by villagers in response to a warning and that the currency could have been found in the packages. The Supreme Court found this explanation plausible and not inherently improbable. The Court stated, "There is nothing inherently improbable in the currency notes having been found in one or more of the packages which are said to have been lying unaccounted for in the Customs House."

5. The High Court's Approach to the Presumption of Guilt and Burden of Proof:
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court's approach, which seemed to presume the guilt of the accused unless they could prove their innocence. The Court emphasized that the burden of proof lay with the prosecution and that suspicion, however grave, could not take the place of proof. The Court stated, "In taking the view of the matter that it did, the High Court, for all practical purposes, presumed the accused to be guilty unless they succeeded in establishing their innocence, which was not a correct approach to the appreciation of evidence."

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to provide sufficient evidence to convict the accused. The Court reversed the High Court's judgment, set aside the convictions and sentences, and acquitted the appellants of all charges. The judgment stated, "We accept all the appeals, reverse the impugned judgment, set aside the conviction recorded against and the sentences imposed upon the appellants (being accused Nos. 1 to 11 and 13) and acquit them of the charge in its entirety."

← Previous Next →