1988 (2) TMI 69 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction and sentencing of Accused 1 and 2 under Section 13 of the Dangerous Drugs Act and Section 135(1) of the Customs Act.
2. Acquittal of the third accused.
3. Legal presumptions under Section 138(A) of the Customs Act and Section 32 of the Dangerous Drugs Act.
4. Admissibility of statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act.
5. Evaluation of culpable mental state.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction and Sentencing of Accused 1 and 2:
Accused 1, a Dutch National, and Accused 2, his employee, were convicted for attempting to export 134.595kgs of Ganja concealed in palmirah leaf baskets to the Netherlands without a valid license. The court found sufficient evidence, including statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act and testimonies of PWs 4 and 15, to establish their involvement. The court dismissed their appeals, confirming their sentences of six months' simple imprisonment each, emphasizing the gravity of the offense and its impact on the state's economy.

2. Acquittal of the Third Accused:
The third accused, the Manager of a licensed export agency, was acquitted by the trial court. The prosecution failed to prove that he had knowledge of the concealed Ganja. Evidence showed that the goods were kept locked in the godown and were not opened by the exporting agency. The court found no reason to interfere with the trial court's finding, noting that the third accused's involvement was limited to signing export documents without knowledge of the prohibited items.

3. Legal Presumptions under Section 138(A) of the Customs Act and Section 32 of the Dangerous Drugs Act:
The court discussed the legal presumptions of culpable mental state under Section 138(A) of the Customs Act and Section 32 of the Dangerous Drugs Act. While these provisions require the court to presume the existence of a mental state, they are rebuttable. The court highlighted that the burden on the accused to displace the presumption is heavy, equivalent to proof beyond reasonable doubt. However, in the case of the third accused, the prosecution's evidence itself was sufficient to dispel the presumption of culpable mental state.

4. Admissibility of Statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act:
The court addressed the admissibility of statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, noting that such statements are substantive evidence and not subject to the prohibitions under Section 25 of the Evidence Act or Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The statements of Accused 1 and 2 were recorded before they were formally accused, making them admissible.

5. Evaluation of Culpable Mental State:
For Accused 1 and 2, the court found that their culpable mental state was sufficiently established without relying solely on the legal presumptions. Their involvement in procuring, packing, and attempting to export the Ganja was evident. In contrast, for the third accused, the court found that the evidence did not support the existence of a culpable mental state. The third accused's actions were based on trust in Accused 1 and 2, and there was no evidence of his knowledge or involvement in the concealment of Ganja.

Conclusion:
The court confirmed the convictions and sentences of Accused 1 and 2, emphasizing the seriousness of their offense. It upheld the acquittal of the third accused, finding no evidence to support a culpable mental state. All three appeals were dismissed.