1978 (9) TMI 63 - HC - Central Excise

Seizure and confiscation - Whether goods are smuggled goods -criteria for - Conviction - Whether deterrent or lenient - Criteria for

Summary

Issues:
1. Conviction under Gold Control Act and Customs Act
2. Appeal against convictions and sentences
3. Petitioner's defense of lack of knowledge about gold bars
4. Evidence supporting the prosecution's case
5. Severity of the sentence and appeal for reduction

Analysis:

1. The High Court of Judicature at Madras dealt with a case involving the conviction of the revision petitioner under Sec. 8(1)(ii) and (iii) and S. 85(1) of the Gold Control Act and Sec. 111 read with Sec. 135(b) of the Customs Act. The trial Magistrate and the Sessions Judge had both found the petitioner guilty and imposed a sentence of two years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine. The petitioner filed a revision challenging these convictions and sentences.

2. The petitioner's defense was that he was unaware of the gold bars concealed in the scooter and had merely accompanied another individual as per instructions. However, the court found no merit in this defense. The evidence presented by prosecution witnesses, including the interception of the scooter, the confession of carrying gold bars, and the recovery of gold bars with foreign markings, clearly established the petitioner's involvement in smuggling activities.

3. The court highlighted the significance of the petitioner's statement, Ex. P.3, which indicated his awareness of previous smuggling activities and his knowledge of carrying gold of foreign origin. The lack of a permit or license for possessing gold of foreign origin further incriminated the petitioner. The court emphasized that the burden was on the petitioner to rebut the presumption of smuggling, which he failed to do, leading to a strong case against him.

4. Referring to legal precedent, the court reiterated that once it is proven that the gold is smuggled, anyone involved in dealing with it knowingly must be held accountable for evasion of duty or violation of restrictions. Citing Vallabhdas Liladhar v. Asst. Collector of Customs, the court affirmed the correctness of the petitioner's conviction based on the established facts and legal principles.

5. Regarding the petitioner's plea for a reduction in the sentence, the court declined to interfere, emphasizing the seriousness of crimes committed by individuals causing harm to the nation's interests. Quoting observations from Balakrishna v. State of West Bengal, the court upheld the convictions and sentences, dismissing the revision petition and maintaining the original judgment.

In conclusion, the High Court of Judicature at Madras upheld the convictions of the revision petitioner under the Gold Control Act and Customs Act, based on substantial evidence and legal principles, and declined to reduce the sentence, emphasizing the gravity of the offenses committed.