2016 (2) TMI 854 - SC - Customs

Possession of old, silver, precious stone or foreign currency - offence punishable under Section 135(1)(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 13(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - sentenced to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹ 10,000/-, with default clause. - Held that - the value of the goods which have been brought to India from Sri Lanka by the appellant is assessed at ₹ 12,27,730/-, therefore, in our considered opinion, the provisions of Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 are not attracted. Further, the conviction under Section 13(1)(a) also cannot be sustained as the goods in relation to gold, silver, precious stone or foreign currency to be brought from abroad to India, then only it will constitute an offence under the aforesaid provisions. None of these goods have been brought by the appellant from Sri Lanka to India on the alleged date of the occurrence, therefore, the finding of reversal recorded by the first appellate court is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. - Decided in favor of appellants.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against reversal of acquittal under Customs Act and Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court considered the correctness of the judgment and order of reversal of acquittal passed by the High Court in a criminal appeal. The appellant was convicted under Section 135(1)(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, and Section 13(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The appellant challenged the reversal of acquittal and the subsequent conviction and sentencing to two months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000. The Court noted that the value of the goods brought from Sri Lanka by the appellant was assessed at Rs. 12,27,730. Consequently, the provisions of Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 were deemed not applicable. Moreover, the conviction under Section 13(1)(a) could not be sustained as the specific goods required for the offense were not brought by the appellant from Sri Lanka to India on the alleged date. Therefore, the Court found the reversal recorded by the first appellate court to be legally flawed and set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court.

This judgment primarily revolved around the interpretation and application of provisions under the Customs Act, 1962, and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The Court meticulously analyzed the facts and legal requirements to determine the appellant's culpability. The key issue was whether the goods brought by the appellant from Sri Lanka fulfilled the criteria specified under the relevant sections of the Acts to constitute an offense. The Court's decision hinged on the absence of crucial goods necessary for the offense, leading to the conclusion that the appellant's conviction and sentencing were unjustified. The judgment underscores the importance of strict adherence to statutory provisions and the essential elements required to establish an offense under the specified Acts.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's ruling in this case highlights the significance of a thorough examination of factual circumstances and legal provisions in criminal appeals involving customs and foreign exchange regulations. The Court's meticulous scrutiny of the evidence and statutory requirements resulted in the reversal of the appellant's conviction and sentencing, emphasizing the necessity for strict compliance with the legal framework to establish criminal liability under the relevant Acts.