1982 (8) TMI 54 - HC - Customs

Search, even if illegal, does not effect the validity of seizure - Interpretation - Acquired possession - Burden of proof - Contraband goods - Confession made by co-accused - Admissibility

Summary

Issues:
1. Legality of search under Section 105 of the Customs Act and its impact on seizure and trial.
2. Consideration of evidence regarding seizure of contraband articles.
3. Applicability of Section 123 of the Act.
4. Effect of illegality of search on the validity of seizure and subsequent trial.
5. Evaluation of statements made by accused and Customs Officers in court proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the legality of a search conducted under Section 105 of the Customs Act and its implications on the seizure of articles and the subsequent trial. The case involved accused individuals who were tried for possessing articles of foreign origin, allegedly liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Act. The trial court acquitted the accused based on the illegality of the search as the prosecution failed to produce the authorization for the search, leading to the exclusion of presumptions under Section 123 of the Act.

2. The appellant challenged the acquittal, arguing that the illegality of the search should not vitiate the entire case. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the appellant contended that even if a search is illegal, it does not invalidate the seizure of articles or the subsequent trial. The court emphasized the need to carefully examine the evidence of seizure independently from the legality of the search, highlighting that the illegality of a search does not automatically nullify the seizure or the trial proceedings.

3. The judgment clarified that the illegality or irregularity in conducting a search does not invalidate the seizure of articles or the trial. It referenced Supreme Court decisions to support the principle that an illegal search does not affect the validity of the seizure, emphasizing the importance of evaluating the evidence of seizure independently. The court reiterated that illegality of a search provides a defense for the searched party but does not nullify the evidence of seizure if found satisfactory.

4. The court emphasized that the illegality of a search should not overshadow the evaluation of evidence regarding the seizure of contraband articles. It highlighted the broad interpretation of the term "acquired possession" under Section 135 of the Act and the initial burden of proof on the prosecution. The judgment underscored that even if a search is illegal, the evidence of seizure should be carefully considered, and Section 123 of the Act can still be invoked if the evidence is acceptable.

5. The judgment also addressed the evaluation of statements made by accused individuals and Customs Officers during the proceedings. It emphasized the admissibility of these statements unless they are in violation of Section 24 of the Evidence Act. The court highlighted the need for proper evaluation of statements, confessions, and admissions made by the accused and the permissible use of such statements under the Evidence Act.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, the acquittal was set aside, and the case was remanded to the trial court for fresh disposal according to law. The court directed a reevaluation of the evidence, including statements made by the accused and Customs Officers, emphasizing the importance of a fair and thorough examination of the facts in the case.