1981 (8) TMI 79 - SC - Customs

Order of acquittal by High Court challenged Held that - The three outstanding circumstances established against the respondent and not disputed before us by the respondent were (1) the presence of the respondent in the flat at the time of the raid by the Central Excise Officers and the recovery of the gold slabs of foreign origin from the steel almirah and (2) the recovery of the bunch of eight keys from his person which keys fitted the almirah from which the gold slabs were recovered and (3) the recovery of a bunch of three keys from his person one of which fitted the lock which was hanging from the inside handle of the door of the flat. To any mind unassailed by some light airy unsubstantial doubt that may flit through the minds of any of us about almost anything at sometimes or other these circumstances should be sufficient to draw an inference of guilt. The High Court however thought that the steel almirah in the flat was not shown to have been specially made and that the keys of a similar almirah could well fit it and that was perhaps how the keys recovered from the accused did fit the almirah in the flat. That of course was not the plea of the accused nor was it a suggestion made to the prosecution witnesses. We are unhesitatingly of the view that the explanations fancied by the High Court was a wholly unreasonable explanation in the circumstances of the case. Shri Jethmalani reminded us first that we were considering circumstantial evidence second we were dealing with an appeal against acquittal and third we were exercising our extraordinary but exceptional jurisdiction under Article 136. We think that interference in this case is imperative and hesitation to interfere will lead to a miscarriage of justice - set side the judgment of the High Court - respondent will surrender forthwith. The gold slabs will stand confiscated - appeal allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in criminal trials and its impact on the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
2. Remedy for undue delay in trials.
3. Evaluation of evidence and circumstantial evidence in the context of the case.
4. Acquittal by the High Court and subsequent appeal by the State.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Criminal Trials and its Impact on the Right to a Speedy Trial under Article 21 of the Constitution:

The judgment highlights the distressing feature of the criminal justice system where accused persons can delay trials by frequent interlocutory applications, questioning sanctions, evidence, and prosecution procedures. The court acknowledges that delays can be caused by both the accused and prosecuting agencies. The judgment references the Hussainara Khatoon case to emphasize that denial of a speedy trial can lead to an infringement of the right to life and liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. The court reiterates that a fair trial implies a speedy trial and that any procedure that does not ensure a reasonably quick trial is not "reasonable, fair, or just" and would violate Article 21.

2. Remedy for Undue Delay in Trials:

The judgment discusses the remedy for undue delay, noting that in the United States, denial of a speedy trial can lead to dismissal of the indictment or vacation of the sentence. However, the court must consider if the defendant contributed to the delay or was prejudiced by it. In India, while a speedy trial is an implied right under Article 21, a delayed trial is not necessarily an unfair trial. The court must examine if the delay caused prejudice to the accused's defense. If prejudice is proven, the conviction may be quashed; otherwise, delayed trial alone is insufficient to quash a conviction.

3. Evaluation of Evidence and Circumstantial Evidence in the Context of the Case:

The case involved three accused charged with offenses under Section 120B of the Penal Code, Section 135 of the Customs Act, and Rule 126P of the Defence of India Rules. The prosecution's evidence included the recovery of gold slabs from a steel almirah in a flat, with keys found on the accused fitting the almirah and the flat's lock. The High Court acquitted the accused, suggesting the keys could fit any similar almirah. The Supreme Court found this explanation unreasonable, emphasizing that circumstantial evidence must be conclusive and not subject to exaggerated or capricious explanations. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to infer guilt.

4. Acquittal by the High Court and Subsequent Appeal by the State:

The High Court's acquittal was based on the reasoning that the keys found on the accused could fit any similar almirah. The Supreme Court disagreed, finding the High Court's explanation unreasonable and the circumstantial evidence sufficient to establish guilt. The court also addressed the argument of delayed trial raised by the defense, noting that the accused himself was responsible for part of the delay and had not shown how the delay prejudiced his defense. The court emphasized the seriousness of the offense, which jeopardizes the economy, and rejected the plea for leniency based on the long lapse of time since the offense. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restored the conviction by the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, and ordered the respondent to surrender forthwith.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's acquittal, restored the conviction by the Magistrate, and ordered the confiscation of the gold slabs to the Central Government. The judgment underscores the importance of a speedy trial as part of the right to a fair trial under Article 21 and the need for conclusive circumstantial evidence in criminal convictions.

← Previous Next →