1997 (11) TMI 102 - SC - Customs

Whether the entire case of the prosecution as against appellant is wholly unbelievable as there is nothing on record to connect him with the alleged occurrence? Held that - In the present case several statements have been recorded under the Customs Act and marked as Ex. 23 to Ex. 31. They were all recorded on 2-2-1970. In the statement of Accused No. 1 he stated that PW 27 was driving the car of the appellant and he met him on the relevant date and requested him to bring gold from the vessel which was in the sea. He was also assured that he would be paid for the work by the appellant. He was instructed to bring gold near Jampore School. His statement implicates the appellant amply. His second statement was recorded on 3-2-1970 and the third on 11-7-1970. In the third statement he had stated that the machine for his boat was fitted with the help of the appellant and it was agreed between him and the appellant that the amounts payable for the work which he would do for the appellant could be adjusted towards the cost of the machine. According to him the appellant told him that if he had any work he would send a message through PW 27. The fourth statement of Accused No. 1 was recorded on 25-2-1972. The statements of Accused Nos. 2 to 7, 10 and 11 were also recorded on 2-2-1970. Accused No. 3 made a specific reference to the appellant. The statements recorded under the Customs Act have been duly proved by the concerned officials. The Courts below were satisfied that there was no threat or inducement and that the relevant provisions of law were explained to the persons who gave the statements. The statements were found to be voluntary and not vitiated in any manner. Hence, all those statements are admissible in evidence and it is clear therefrom that the appellant was guilty of the offences for which he was prosecuted. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against conviction under Customs Act and Gold Control Act.
2. Reliability of prosecution's evidence.
3. Admissibility of statements recorded under the Customs Act.
4. Sufficiency of evidence to prove guilt.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Appeal against conviction under Customs Act and Gold Control Act
The appellant was the 8th accused in a criminal case involving offences under Sections 135(1A) and 135(1B) of the Customs Act, 1962, and Section 25 of the Gold Control Act, 1968. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and fines by the trial court. The High Court partly allowed his appeal, reducing the sentence under the Customs Act. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court challenging the judgment.

Issue 2: Reliability of prosecution's evidence
The appellant's counsel argued that the prosecution's case against him was unbelievable and solely based on the uncorroborated testimony of a witness. The witness, originally an accused, implicated the appellant. The appellant contended that without this witness's testimony, there was no evidence connecting him to the alleged offences. However, the Court found the arguments unmerited upon reviewing the entire record.

Issue 3: Admissibility of statements recorded under the Customs Act
Several statements were recorded under the Customs Act, implicating the appellant. The statements were recorded voluntarily without any coercion. The Court held that these statements were admissible as evidence, citing precedents like Ramesh Chandra v. State of West Bengal and K.I. Pavunny v. Assistant Collector.

Issue 4: Sufficiency of evidence to prove guilt
The statements recorded under the Customs Act, along with the testimony of a Customs Officer who knew the appellant's driver, provided sufficient evidence to establish the appellant's guilt. The Trial Court and the High Court had thoroughly examined the evidence and found it conclusive. The Supreme Court concurred with their findings, dismissing the appeals against the conviction.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' decision, finding the evidence against the appellant to be substantial and the conviction justified under the Customs Act and Gold Control Act.