1980 (2) TMI 95 - SC - Customs

Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 5 were acquitted by the charges framed against them Held that - Merely because P.Ws. 2 and 4 were Customs Officers their evidence could not be rejected outright because they were doubtless competent officers to prove the search and the recoveries. Thus we are unable to agree with the view of the High Court that in the instant case the confessions of the respondents were not corroborated by the recoveries as proved by the search lists and the witnesses to the same. Having considered the evidence of P.Ws. 1 2 4 and 9 we are satisfied that the confessional statements made by the respondents before the Customs Officers (which are undoubtedly admissible in evidence) were fully corroborated by the witnesses mentioned above. On an overall consideration of the evidence therefore we are satisfied that the judgment of the High Court acquitting the respondents is vitiated by a clear error of law. The appeals are accordingly allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set aside and that of the Chief Presidency Magistrate convicting and sentencing the respondents as indicated above is restored.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against acquittal, Confessions before Customs authorities, Corroboration of confessions, Recovery of smuggled goods, Reliability of witnesses, Competency of Customs Officers as witnesses.

Analysis:
The judgment involves two appeals against the acquittal of two respondents by the Bombay High Court in a case related to smuggling of goods. The respondents were initially convicted by the Chief Presidency Magistrate under various sections of the Customs Act and the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, along with the Indian Penal Code. The High Court acquitted the respondents based on the lack of corroboration of their confessions and the recovery of smuggled goods. The case revolved around the recovery of smuggled goods worth Rs. 15 lakhs, including imported watches and diacem antwerpen. The central evidence relied upon was the confessions made by the respondents before the Customs authorities, corroborated by witnesses to the recovery of the smuggled articles. The Trial Court found the confessions corroborated and convicted the respondents, but the High Court disagreed, emphasizing the absence of independent witnesses during the search and recovery process.

The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence of witnesses to the search and recovery, including Customs Officials and an independent witness. The Court found no reason to disbelieve their testimony and highlighted the necessity of maintaining secrecy during such operations to prevent leakage. The Court noted the specific locations where the goods were recovered, making it impractical to have witnesses from the locality. The Court also emphasized the reliability of the witnesses and the corroborative nature of the evidence presented. The High Court's rejection of the Customs Officers' testimony was deemed incorrect, as their competency to prove the search and recoveries was valid.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's acquittal was based on a clear error of law. The appeals were allowed, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the conviction and sentencing by the Chief Presidency Magistrate. The judgment highlighted the importance of corroborative evidence in cases involving confessions before authorities and the reliability of witnesses, especially in the context of smuggling cases.