1992 (7) TMI 89 - SC - Customs

Conviction and sentence under S. 135 of the Customs Act - Held that - The evidence in the present case discloses that all the wrist watches are having foreign marks. The customs officers taking into consideration the various impelling circumstances appearing in the case, have arrived at the conclusion on a reasonable belief that these goods are smuggled goods. As rightly pointed out by the learned Addl. Solicitor General, the respondents from whom these contrabands were seized have not satisfactorily discharged the burden of proof cast upon them as required by S. 123 of the Customs Act that they are not sumggled goods. No compunction in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has established its case. Hence we are unable to agree with the reasons given by the High Court. In the result we set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore the judgment of the trial court as confirmed by the appellate court so far as the conviction is concerned. Having regard to the above submission to the question of sentence that the learned counsel appearing for the respondents after stating that the offence took place in 1973; that both the respondents have suffered the imprisonment for some period and that the value of the contrabands seized from the 1st respondent was at ₹ 2,590/- and the value of the wrist watches seized from the 2nd respondent was ₹ 925/-, prayed for lenient sentence, we while confirming the conviction under S. 135 of the Customs Act modify the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone but retain the fine amount of ₹ 2,000/- imposed on each of the respondents by the courts below. The appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Setting aside of conviction and sentence by High Court
2. Evaluation of evidence regarding possession of smuggled goods
3. Interpretation of Section 135 of the Customs Act
4. Burden of proof on accused to show goods are not smuggled
5. Applicability of legal precedents in determining reasonable belief of customs officers

Detailed Analysis:
1. The Supreme Court addressed the issue of the Union of India being aggrieved by the High Court's judgment setting aside the conviction and sentence of two accused individuals under Section 135 of the Customs Act. The trial court and appellate court had both convicted the accused based on possession of wristwatches believed to be liable for confiscation. The High Court's decision was based on the failure of the prosecution to prove the watches were smuggled goods and the absence of presumption under Section 123 of the Customs Act.

2. The accusations against the accused individuals involved possession of foreign-made wristwatches at Nagpur Railway Station, which were believed to be liable for confiscation under the Customs Act. The trial court and appellate court found the accused guilty under Section 135 of the Customs Act. However, the High Court set aside the conviction due to lack of proof of incriminating knowledge or belief regarding the watches being smuggled goods.

3. The Supreme Court analyzed the interpretation of Section 135 of the Customs Act, emphasizing the requirement of establishing all necessary ingredients to constitute an offense under the Act. The court referred to legal precedents, including the principle that courts should accept the belief of customs officers regarding seized goods being smuggled, without sitting in appeal on the reasonableness of such belief.

4. The burden of proof was highlighted in the judgment, indicating that the accused individuals failed to discharge the burden cast upon them by Section 123 of the Customs Act to prove that the seized goods were not smuggled. The court found that the prosecution had satisfactorily established the charges against the accused based on the evidence presented.

5. The court applied legal precedents to determine the reasonable belief of customs officers regarding the seized goods being smuggled. The analysis of impelling circumstances and foreign marks on the wristwatches led to the conclusion that the goods were indeed smuggled. The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's reasoning, setting aside its judgment and restoring the conviction of the trial court. However, the court modified the sentence to the period already undergone by the accused but retained the fine amount imposed by the lower courts.