2015 (7) TMI 419 - HC - Customs

Imprisonment for non payment of dues - carrying smuggled gold - offences punishable under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that - It is a settled law that the confessional statement made by an accused under Section 108 of the Customs Act is admissible in evidence for prosecution under section 135 of the Customs Act. Though, it was the case of the petitioner that he had retracted his confessional statement, but he failed to show that the same was recorded under any inducement or promise or threat or the same was tutored one. It has been shown from the record that the petitioner made the statement voluntarily and the same is admissible in evidence. Though the High Court is not required to act as a court of appeal but at the same time, it is the duty of the court to correct manifest illegality resulting in gross miscarriage of justice. The High Court is not required to interfere in the concurrent finding of facts. This Court is of the considered opinion that the present case is not a fit case where the revisional jurisdiction is required to be exercised on the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the Courts below. This Court does not find any procedural irregularity, overlooking of material evidence, misreading of the same or miscarriage of justice. There is no jurisdictional error in the judgments passed by the Courts below. Neither there is any failure to exercise the jurisdiction or exceeding of jurisdiction by the learned trial Court and appellate Court while passing the judgment. The discussion made above in the light of evidence/material led by the prosecution, does not warrant any interference in the conclusion drawn by the Courts below. Thus, the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the learned trial Court as well as the judgment passed by the learned appellate Court are upheld. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned trial court concerned to serve the sentence of imprisonment.

Summary

Issues:
Conviction under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962; Appeal against judgment of conviction and sentence; Revision petition challenging lower court decisions; Admissibility of confessional statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act; Exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the High Court.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a case where the petitioner was convicted under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, for smuggling gold and other items. The petitioner challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the lower courts through a revision petition. The prosecution's case was based on the recovery of smuggled gold and goods from the petitioner's possession at the airport. The petitioner's confessional statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act was a crucial piece of evidence against him.

The prosecution presented two witnesses, PW1 and PW2, who testified to the recovery and seizure of the smuggled items from the petitioner. Both witnesses' testimonies remained unchallenged, and the petitioner failed to discredit them during cross-examination. The court noted that the confessional statement made by the petitioner was admissible in evidence as it was voluntarily given and not obtained under duress. The court emphasized the importance of not re-appreciating evidence in a revisional jurisdiction unless there is a manifest illegality resulting in a gross miscarriage of justice.

The High Court, in its analysis, found no procedural irregularities, material evidence overlooked, or jurisdictional errors in the lower courts' judgments. The court held that there was no basis for interference in the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the trial court and the appellate court. Consequently, the High Court upheld the judgment of conviction and the order on sentence, directing the petitioner to surrender before the trial court to serve the imprisonment term. The revision petition was dismissed as lacking merit, and the trial court record was to be sent back.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment affirmed the conviction of the petitioner under the Customs Act, emphasizing the importance of admissible evidence, proper exercise of revisional jurisdiction, and the need to correct manifest illegality leading to a miscarriage of justice. The detailed analysis of the evidence presented and the legal principles applied resulted in the dismissal of the revision petition and the upholding of the lower courts' decisions.