1969 (8) TMI 32 - SC - Customs

Evidence Enquiry before Customs officer is not a judicial proceeding Deemed Connotation of Evidence Act Statement of the accused

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conspiracy and substantive offences under Section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947.
2. Admissibility of evidence obtained under Section 171A of the Sea Customs Act.
3. Possession and custody of incriminating documents.
4. Evaluation of circumstantial evidence and individual involvement of the accused.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Conspiracy and Substantive Offences:
The appellants were prosecuted for conspiracy and substantive offences under Section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The prosecution alleged that the accused conspired to defraud the Government of India by evading customs duties and importing prohibited goods from Hong Kong to Bombay between August 1958 and August 1959. The conspiracy involved manipulating customs examination practices to smuggle contraband goods. The High Court upheld the convictions and sentences of the appellants, except for some charges which were set aside.

2. Admissibility of Evidence:
The admissibility of statements made to Customs Officers under Section 171A of the Sea Customs Act was a significant issue. The Court noted that Section 171A, introduced in 1955, allowed Customs Officers to summon individuals to give evidence or produce documents in connection with smuggling inquiries. The Court rejected the argument that these statements should be inadmissible under Section 132 of the Evidence Act, which protects individuals from self-incrimination. The Court held that Section 171A(4) deemed such inquiries as judicial proceedings for specific purposes, but not generally, and thus the statements were admissible.

3. Possession and Custody of Incriminating Documents:
The High Court found that the first accused had custody or possession of incriminating documents seized during a search of H.B. Advani Brothers' premises. The Court rejected the defense's argument that there was no proof of exclusive possession by the first accused. The Court accepted the testimony of a witness who stated that the first accused was present at the table where the documents were found, despite the absence of this detail in the panchnama.

4. Evaluation of Circumstantial Evidence and Individual Involvement:
The High Court relied on several circumstances to establish the conspiracy. These included the seizure of documents linking the accused to the shipments, the origin of shipments from accused No. 6 in Hong Kong, and the involvement of accused No. 4 in clearing the goods using the name of Tarasingh & Sons. The Court also noted the method of obtaining customs examination orders and the association between the accused in clearing the consignments. The Court dismissed the explanations provided by the accused as improbable and upheld the conviction based on the cumulative effect of the circumstantial evidence.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's findings on the guilt of the accused, the admissibility of evidence under Section 171A, and the possession of incriminating documents. The Court emphasized the importance of evaluating circumstantial evidence and the credibility of witness testimony in establishing the conspiracy.