1997 (6) TMI 356 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conscious possession of contraband.
2. Identification and purity of the seized gold.
3. Voluntariness of the accused's statements.
4. Compliance with Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act.
5. Presumption of culpable mental state u/s 138A of the Customs Act.
6. Competence of the Trial Court in awarding punishment.
7. Justification of the lower Appellate Court in setting aside the conviction and sentence.

Summary:

1. Conscious Possession of Contraband:
The prosecution established that the accused arrived from Singapore and was intercepted at the Madras International Airport. Upon inspection, gold concealed in a television was discovered. The accused did not possess any permit or licence for the import of gold and did not declare it to customs. The Trial Court convicted the accused, but the Sessions Court acquitted him, leading to the State's appeal. The High Court concluded that the accused was in conscious possession of the contraband based on his own admissions and the circumstances of the seizure.

2. Identification and Purity of the Seized Gold:
The prosecution asserted that the seized gold bits were of foreign origin and 24 carats in purity, valued at Rs. 1,20,960/-. The lower Appellate Court doubted the purity due to the lack of a chemical test. However, the High Court held that the customs officials' experience and the markings on the gold were sufficient to establish its identity and purity, citing the decision in Assistant Collector C.B. Calicut v. V.P. Sayed Mohammed.

3. Voluntariness of the Accused's Statements:
The accused's statements (Exhibits P-6 to P-8) were initially admitted but later retracted, claiming they were given under the dictation of customs officials. The High Court emphasized that confessions made before customs officers are admissible and have significant evidentiary value, as supported by Supreme Court rulings in Surjeet Singh Chhabra v. Union of India and K.I. Pavunny v. Assistant Collector.

4. Compliance with Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act:
The respondent argued that the statements were recorded without proper authorization. The High Court found that P.Ws. 1 to 3 were empowered to record the statements and acted within their delegated powers. The sanction accorded by the Assistant Collector of Customs was not questioned, validating the actions of the customs officers.

5. Presumption of Culpable Mental State u/s 138A of the Customs Act:
The High Court explained that u/s 138A, the burden of disproving the presumption of a culpable mental state lies heavily on the accused. The respondent failed to provide evidence to rebut this presumption, and his late denials were insufficient to discharge the burden.

6. Competence of the Trial Court in Awarding Punishment:
The High Court noted that the Trial Court imposed a lesser punishment than the statutory minimum, which was inappropriate given the gravity of the economic offence. The High Court suggested that a more rigorous punishment should have been awarded.

7. Justification of the Lower Appellate Court in Setting Aside the Conviction and Sentence:
The High Court found that the lower Appellate Court acted unreasonably and arbitrarily, failing to appreciate the gravity of the offence and the evidentiary value of the prosecution's case. The High Court restored the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court.

Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the lower Appellate Court and restoring the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. The lower Court was directed to order the arrest of the respondent/accused and report compliance.