1990 (2) TMI 316 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Acquittal of the respondent under Section 135 of the Customs Act.
2. Validity of the sanction for prosecution under Section 137 of the Customs Act.
3. Reasonable belief for issuing the search warrant under Section 105 of the Customs Act.
4. Burden of proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act.
5. Admissibility of statements recorded under Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Acquittal of the Respondent under Section 135 of the Customs Act:
The Union of India challenged the acquittal of the respondent, who was tried for offenses under Sections 11-C, 11-D, 11-E, and 11-F of the Customs Act, punishable under Section 135 of the same Act. The High Court reviewed the evidence and found that the trial court's conclusion that the seized goods were not smuggled was erroneous. The trial court failed to properly apply the burden of proof principles under the Customs Act. The High Court set aside the acquittal, convicted the respondent, and sentenced him to three months of rigorous imprisonment.

2. Validity of the Sanction for Prosecution under Section 137 of the Customs Act:
The respondent's counsel argued that the prosecution must fail due to lack of proper sanction. The sanction order (Exh. 14) issued by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Nagpur, was scrutinized. The High Court found that the sanction order demonstrated that the Collector had examined the records and adjudication proceedings, thereby showing application of mind. The sanction was deemed valid as it complied with Section 137 of the Customs Act.

3. Reasonable Belief for Issuing the Search Warrant under Section 105 of the Customs Act:
The trial court had held that the issuance of the search warrant under Section 105 was not proved due to the non-examination of the Assistant Collector who issued it. However, the High Court found that the search warrant (Exh. 8) indicated that there was reliable information leading to a reasonable belief that the goods liable to confiscation were secreted in the respondent's premises. The High Court cited various precedents to support that the officer's subjective belief need not be disclosed and is not subject to judicial review unless challenged in collateral proceedings.

4. Burden of Proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act:
The High Court emphasized that under Section 123 of the Customs Act, once the prosecution establishes a prima facie case that the goods are of foreign origin, the burden shifts to the respondent to prove that the goods are not smuggled. The respondent failed to provide any evidence or documents to show that the seized goods were legally imported. The High Court held that the trial court erred in not properly applying Section 123, leading to the wrongful acquittal of the respondent.

5. Admissibility of Statements Recorded under Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act:
The respondent's counsel argued that the statements recorded by the Customs officers were inadmissible. The High Court rejected this argument, stating that Customs officers are not police officers, and statements made to them are admissible under Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act. The High Court cited Supreme Court precedents affirming that statements made during inquiries by Customs officers are admissible as they are not considered to be made by an accused person under formal accusation.

Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court's judgment, and convicted the respondent under Section 135 of the Customs Act. The respondent was sentenced to three months of rigorous imprisonment, with a two-month period granted for surrender. The judgment underscores the proper application of legal provisions under the Customs Act and the necessity of a valid sanction for prosecution, reasonable belief for search warrants, and the burden of proof in cases involving smuggled goods.