1984 (9) TMI 67 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Sec. 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act.
2. Voluntariness and admissibility of statements under Sec. 108 of the Customs Act.
3. Jurisdictional question regarding the vessel being within territorial waters.
4. Enhancement of sentence by the appellate court.
5. Legal representation and fair trial considerations.
6. Financial capacity and appropriateness of fines imposed.
7. Role and knowledge of each accused regarding the smuggled goods.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction under Sec. 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act:
The accused were convicted for offenses punishable under Sec. 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Junagadh, and sentenced to seven years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. The Additional Sessions Judge modified the sentence to 42 months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 20,000/-. The High Court upheld this modification, noting the substantial evidence against the accused, including their possession of smuggled goods worth Rs. 53,22,358/- and their attempt to evade capture.

2. Voluntariness and Admissibility of Statements under Sec. 108 of the Customs Act:
The statements of the accused recorded under Sec. 108 of the Customs Act were considered voluntary and admissible. The court noted that these statements were not recorded by police officers and hence were not hit by Sec. 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The statements were used to lend assurance to the prosecution's case, which was already supported by substantial evidence.

3. Jurisdictional Question Regarding the Vessel Being Within Territorial Waters:
The court confirmed that the vessel Al-Barkati was within Indian territorial waters when apprehended. The evidence, including the logbook and testimonies of customs officers, indicated that the vessel was within 24 nautical miles (44.472 Kms) from the coast, thus falling under the jurisdiction of Indian customs laws.

4. Enhancement of Sentence by the Appellate Court:
The appellate court's modification of the sentence was challenged as an enhancement. However, the High Court ruled that reducing the substantive sentence of imprisonment while increasing the fine did not constitute an enhancement. The aggregate period of imprisonment, including default imprisonment for non-payment of the fine, did not exceed the original sentence of seven years R.I.

5. Legal Representation and Fair Trial Considerations:
The accused argued that they were not provided legal representation during the trial, violating their right to a fair trial. The court noted that the accused were given opportunities to cross-examine witnesses and that the lack of legal aid did not result in a miscarriage of justice. The court emphasized that legal aid is not mandated for economic or anti-national offenses under the prevailing rules.

6. Financial Capacity and Appropriateness of Fines Imposed:
The court considered the financial conditions of the accused but upheld the fines imposed by the appellate court. It was noted that the magnitude of the smuggling offense, involving goods worth over Rs. 53 lakhs, justified the fines. The court also highlighted that the aggregate imprisonment, including default imprisonment, was less than the original sentence, making the fines appropriate.

7. Role and Knowledge of Each Accused Regarding the Smuggled Goods:
The court examined the involvement of each accused in the smuggling operation. Statements and evidence indicated that the accused were not merely passengers but actively participated in the smuggling activities. The court rejected the defense that some accused were unaware of the smuggled goods, noting their roles in loading and attempting to evade capture.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed all revision applications, upholding the convictions and modified sentences. The court found no merit in the contentions regarding the voluntariness of statements, jurisdictional issues, enhancement of sentences, lack of legal representation, and appropriateness of fines. The accused were directed to serve their sentences as modified by the appellate court.