1990 (9) TMI 96 - HC - Customs

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Section 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Burden of proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act.
3. Conscious possession of the smuggled goods.
4. Delay in judicial proceedings and its impact on sentencing.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction under Section 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962:

The revision appellants, originally accused Nos. 1 to 3, were convicted under Section 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, by the Joint Civil Judge, J.D. & J.M.F.C. Palghar, Thane district. They were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for six months and fined Rs. 500 each, with an additional two months of R.I. in default of payment. The Sessions Court maintained the conviction but reduced the R.I. to four months. The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence for accused Nos. 1 and 2 but acquitted accused No. 3.

2. Burden of Proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act:

The prosecution argued that the seized goods bore foreign markings, leading to a reasonable belief that they were smuggled. Under Section 123 of the Customs Act, once goods are seized under reasonable belief of being smuggled, the burden of proof shifts to the accused to prove otherwise. The High Court emphasized that the presumption under Section 123 arises from the seizure under reasonable belief, and the prosecution is not required to initially prove the goods were smuggled. The court referenced previous judgments to support this interpretation, noting that the very purpose of Section 123 would be defeated if the prosecution had to first prove the goods were smuggled before the presumption could arise.

3. Conscious Possession of the Smuggled Goods:

The accused were intercepted in a taxi carrying smuggled textiles. Statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act incriminated accused Nos. 1 and 2, showing their connection with the smuggled goods. The court found these statements credible despite the late retraction by the accused. However, for accused No. 3, the statements indicated he was not involved in the smuggling and was merely a passenger. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove accused No. 3's conscious possession of the goods, leading to his acquittal.

4. Delay in Judicial Proceedings and its Impact on Sentencing:

The incident occurred in 1974, and the final judgment was delivered in 1990. The defense argued that the prolonged trial period should mitigate the sentence. The court acknowledged the delay but attributed it to unavoidable judicial backlog and upheld the reduced sentence of four months R.I. for accused Nos. 1 and 2, deeming the leniency shown by the lower courts sufficient.

Conclusion:

The High Court partly allowed the revision, acquitting accused No. 3 and confirming the conviction and sentence for accused Nos. 1 and 2. The court granted time for the petitioners to surrender until 28th September 1990.

← Previous Next →