1980 (11) TMI 60 - HC - Customs

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the search and seizure of gold bars.
2. Voluntariness of the confession statements.
3. Adequacy of the sentence imposed on the first accused.
4. Legality of the set-off of the detention period under Section 428 Cr. P.C.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the search and seizure of gold bars:

The facts reveal that the aircraft No. 4R-ACN of Air Ceylon arrived at Meenambakkam Airport, Madras, on 31-7-1975. P.W. 1, a Customs Officer, observed the first accused handing over a white paper parcel to the second accused, who then kept the parcel in the cockpit. The Customs Officer's suspicion led to the search of the aircraft, resulting in the discovery of gold bars in a blue cloth bag and a leather bag belonging to the first accused. The gold bars were seized under a mahazar duly attested by witnesses. The court found that the evidence of P.W. 1, corroborated by P.W. 4, an independent witness, sufficiently proved the recovery of the gold bars. The court dismissed the contention that P.W. 1 was unreliable, stating that discrepancies in his testimony did not undermine the overall credibility of the search and seizure process.

2. Voluntariness of the confession statements:

The first and second accused made confession statements (Exs. P. 8 and P. 9) to the Customs officials. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate initially held that the prosecution failed to prove the voluntariness of these statements, citing the unusual nature of the confessions. However, the court disagreed, finding no acceptable reasons to doubt the voluntariness of the statements. The detailed confessions corroborated the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 4 regarding the recovery of the gold bars. The court concluded that the statements were voluntarily made and should be considered reliable evidence.

3. Adequacy of the sentence imposed on the first accused:

The first accused was convicted under Section 135(1)(a)(i) of the Customs Act and sentenced to nine months of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500. The Assistant Collector of Customs appealed, arguing that the sentence was too lenient given the seriousness of the economic offence. The court noted that the Magistrate had considered the first accused's old age and family responsibilities in determining the sentence. The court found these considerations relevant and upheld the sentence, dismissing the appeal for a harsher punishment.

4. Legality of the set-off of the detention period under Section 428 Cr. P.C.:

The Assistant Collector of Customs challenged the Magistrate's order setting off the detention period under Section 428 Cr. P.C., arguing that the detention under the COFEPOSA Act was preventive and should not be set off. The court examined the detention records and found that the first accused was detained for 279 days, including periods of preventive detention and remand related to the case. Citing the Supreme Court's observation that preventive and punitive detentions can continue simultaneously, the court upheld the Magistrate's decision to set off the detention period. The revision petition was dismissed, confirming the set-off and the sentence imposed on the first accused.

Conclusion:

The court confirmed the conviction and sentence of the first accused, dismissed the appeals against the acquittal of the second accused, and upheld the set-off of the detention period. The judgments addressed the legality of the search and seizure, the voluntariness of the confessions, the adequacy of the sentence, and the legality of the set-off under Section 428 Cr. P.C.

← Previous Next →