1984 (6) TMI 54 - HC - Customs

Confiscation of smuggled goods must be based on reasonable belief - Burden of proof - Writ jurisdiction - Evidence - Criminal trial

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the respondent's possession of the foreign-made Datsun car.
2. Applicability of Section 123 of the Customs Act.
3. Validity of the respondent's confessional statement.
4. Burden of proof and requisite knowledge under Section 135 of the Customs Act.
5. Evaluation of evidence and reasonable belief.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the respondent's possession of the foreign-made Datsun car:
The respondent was charged under Section 135(b) of the Customs Act for dealing with a foreign-made Datsun car without authority, knowing it to be liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Act. The trial court convicted the respondent, but the appellate court reversed this decision, leading to the current appeal. The High Court emphasized that the prosecution must establish that the contraband article was in the conscious possession of the accused, as per precedents like J.A. Naidu v. State of Maharashtra.

2. Applicability of Section 123 of the Customs Act:
Section 123 of the Customs Act, which shifts the burden of proof to the person in possession of seized goods, was discussed. However, the High Court agreed with the appellate court and the counsel for both sides that this section did not apply to the case because the Central Government had not specified vehicles as a class of goods under this provision.

3. Validity of the respondent's confessional statement:
The respondent's confessional statement (Ext. 4) to the Customs Officer was scrutinized. The High Court noted that such statements are admissible and not hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act or Article 20(3) of the Constitution, referencing Romesh Chandra Mehta v. State of West Bengal. The respondent claimed the statement was made under threat, but the court found no evidence of coercion or inducement, thus deeming the statement voluntary.

4. Burden of proof and requisite knowledge under Section 135 of the Customs Act:
The prosecution needed to prove beyond doubt that the respondent knew or had reason to believe that the car was liable to confiscation. The High Court noted that mere suspicion or carelessness does not suffice; the belief must be that of an honest and reasonable person based on reasonable grounds. The appellate court found no evidence that the respondent had the requisite knowledge or reason to believe that the car was liable to confiscation, a view supported by the High Court.

5. Evaluation of evidence and reasonable belief:
The High Court examined the evidence presented, including the statements of witnesses and the confessional statement. The court found that the evidence did not conclusively establish that the respondent had acquired or was in possession of the car. The appellate court's observation that the respondent's statement did not amount to a confession was upheld. The High Court emphasized that suspicion, however grave, cannot replace proof in a criminal trial.

Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the appellate court correctly found that the charge had not been proven against the respondent. The appeal was dismissed, and the order of acquittal was upheld. The court also noted that the trial court's order for confiscation of the vehicle was not disturbed by the appellate court and was rightly so on the facts and circumstances of the case.

← Previous Next →