2018 (9) TMI 514 - HC - Customs

Smuggling - Gold Bars - Confiscation - Section 111 of the Customs Act and Section 135 of the Customs Act - divergent views of different Courts - whether the acquittal order is sustainable? Held that - Surely, when two views are available, one view was accepted by the trial court and acquitted the accused, the appellate court may not unsettle the same by saying that another view is also possible. The Hon ble Apex Court said that the subject matter, i.e., 30 gold biscuits are subject to confiscation, it can be said that, that issue has been finally decided by the Apex Court. It is binding upon all the Courts and the authorities in India. When there is such a finding, it can be only said that in a prosecution under Section 135 of the Customs Act, the primary burden of the prosecution has been discharged - the burden as such will not be upon the appellant, as in a proceeding under Section 111 of the Customs Act. Surely, the burden upon the respondent is not that as in a civil proceedings. The impugned judgment of acquittal is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court to decide afresh after affording opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence, if any, they want to produce - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against judgment of acquittal in a Customs Act case.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court in a Customs Act case. The respondent was found in possession of 30 gold bars with foreign markings, leading to his arrest and subsequent confiscation of the contraband. The prosecution initiated criminal proceedings under Section 135 of the Customs Act, examining witnesses and presenting evidence. The trial court acquitted the accused, leading to the appeal.

During the appeal hearing, the appellant argued that previous proceedings under Section 111 of the Customs Act had resulted in the confiscation of the gold bars, which was later challenged and modified. The High Court's judgment directing the return of the gold bars was reversed by the Supreme Court, settling the issue of confiscation. The burden now shifted to the appellant to prove the offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act.

The respondent's counsel contended that the proceedings under Section 111 for confiscation and Section 135 for penalization were distinct. The trial court's acquittal was based on the lack of evidence proving the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The counsel argued that the Supreme Court's judgment on confiscation did not automatically apply to the criminal prosecution under Section 135.

The court emphasized that in criminal proceedings under Section 135, the focus is on proving mens rea for imposing a sentence. The acquittal order was deemed sustainable as the trial court had accepted one view favoring the accused. The Supreme Court's decision on confiscation did not automatically unsettle the acquittal. The burden of proof lay with the respondent, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

In conclusion, the judgment of acquittal was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration, allowing both parties to present additional evidence if necessary. The decision highlighted the distinction between proceedings for confiscation and criminal prosecution under the Customs Act, reaffirming the burden of proof and the need to establish mens rea in criminal cases.