1992 (3) TMI 89 - SC - Customs

Conviction of first respondent set aside by HC - Held that - When two pieces of evidence namely the evidence of P.W. 7 and the statements of A1 and A3 given before the Customs Officers are eschewed from consideration as correctly pointed out by the High Court there is absolutely no evidence worth mentioning to sustain the conviction of the first respondent as recorded by the trial Court and subsequently confirmed by the first Appellate Court. In fact the High Court has analysed the evidence adduced by the prosecution in the proper perspective and arrived at a correct conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charge against the first respondent. The judgment of the High Court in our considered opinion does not suffer either from manifest illegality or irregularity or perversity. Hence for all the discussions made above we confirm the judgment of the High Court and dismiss the appeal as devoid of any merit.

Summary

Issues:
1. Conviction under Section 135(i)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962
2. Ownership of the vehicle used for smuggling
3. Admissibility of evidence under Section 108 of the Customs Act

Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment involves a Criminal Appeal where the Superintendent of Customs challenged the High Court's decision in a case related to the conviction of the first respondent under Section 135(i)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The trial court had convicted the first respondent along with others, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The first Appellate Court partly allowed the appeals filed by the convicted individuals. The High Court, upon revision, set aside the judgment of the first Appellate Court, leading to the appeal in the Supreme Court.

2. The prosecution alleged that the jeep used for smuggling belonged to the first respondent. However, evidence revealed that the jeep was purchased by the first respondent's wife and later sold to another individual who was acquitted in the case. The High Court examined the ownership of the vehicle and concluded that it was not in the name of the first respondent at the time of the incident, thereby weakening the prosecution's case.

3. The prosecution heavily relied on the evidence of a witness and statements recorded from accused individuals under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The High Court criticized the first Appellate Court for considering these statements as corroborative evidence, highlighting that they should not have been given such weight. By excluding these pieces of evidence, the High Court found a lack of substantial evidence to uphold the conviction of the first respondent. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, emphasizing the failure of the prosecution to prove the charges against the first respondent, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

This detailed analysis outlines the key issues addressed in the judgment, including the conviction under the Customs Act, ownership of the vehicle used for smuggling, and the admissibility of evidence crucial to the case.