1977 (10) TMI 40 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Conviction under S. 135(b)(ii) of the Customs Act
2. Allegation of knowingly acquiring and concealing smuggled goods
3. Possession of contraband goods
4. Evidence of possession of premises
5. Admissibility of statement by second accused

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to a criminal revision case challenging the conviction of the revision petitioner under S. 135(b)(ii) of the Customs Act and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year. The Sessions Judge of Pudukottai had confirmed the conviction initially.

2. The allegation against the revision petitioner was that he knowingly acquired possession of smuggled nutmegs and mace, an offense under S. 135 of the Customs Act. The prosecution contended that the petitioner and his wife were involved in concealing and harboring the contraband goods, which were liable for confiscation.

3. During a search conducted by Customs officers, 30 bags of nutmegs and three bags of mace were found in a locked building. The prosecution failed to establish that the revision petitioner was in possession of the premises where the goods were seized. The witnesses did not confirm the petitioner's exclusive possession of the building on the date of the raid.

4. The building where the contraband goods were found belonged to another individual, Balkis Ammal, and there was no evidence to prove that the revision petitioner leased the premises or was in exclusive possession. The Village headman testified that Balkis Ammal was in possession of the house on the relevant date.

5. The second accused, the wife of the revision petitioner, provided a statement admitting to leasing the building but did not admit to being in physical possession. The court held that this admission could not be used as substantive evidence against the revision petitioner to establish his possession of the building and involvement in concealing the contraband goods.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the revision, setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioner under S. 135(b)(ii) of the Customs Act, as the prosecution failed to prove his possession of the contraband goods.