9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Conviction under Customs Act and Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947, Appeal against conviction, Acquittal by Sessions Court, Appeal by State of Maharashtra, Possession of contraband goods, Knowledge of contents of packages, Evidence evaluation, Circumstantial evidence, Burden of proof, Presumption under Customs Act. Analysis: The judgment involves the conviction of two respondents under Section 135(b)(i) of the Customs Act and Sections 3 and 4 punishable under Section 5 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The respondents were sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000 each. They appealed to the Sessions Court, which acquitted them, leading to the State of Maharashtra filing an appeal against this decision. One of the respondents had passed away during the pendency of the appeal. The case revolved around the interception of a truck driven by respondent No. 1, with respondent No. 2 as a passenger, carrying contraband goods worth Rs. 6,09,785. Customs officers discovered the goods hidden under vegetable bundles during a routine check near a village. The respondents claimed ignorance about the contents of the packages, stating they were misled by another individual who loaded the truck. The trial court convicted them based on this evidence, but the Sessions Court acquitted them, citing lack of substantial proof. The lower Appellate Court evaluated the circumstances against the respondents, including the suspicious behavior of respondent No. 1 upon encountering Customs officers, lack of receipts for the goods, and reluctance to allow a search of the truck. The prosecution relied on Section 138A of the Customs Act to shift the burden of proof to the accused. However, the Appellate Court found these circumstances insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The High Court agreed with the Appellate Court's assessment, emphasizing that the mere act of turning the truck back upon seeing Customs officers did not conclusively prove knowledge or conscious possession of the contraband goods. The Court noted the introduction of burden-shifting provisions in the Customs Act in 1973, which might not apply retroactively to offenses committed in 1969. Considering the time lapse between the offense and the acquittal, the High Court declined to interfere with the acquittal, stating it was not a case warranting reversal merely on the basis of a possible alternative view. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal of the respondents. The bail bond of respondent No. 1 was canceled, and no orders were necessary for respondent No. 2 due to abatement of the appeal following their demise.
|
