9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1987 (3) TMI 130 - SC - CustomsWhether the evidence was sufficient to justify the guilt of the accused for the commission of offences with which he was charged? Held that - We fail to appreciate that the respondent at no time denied that the contraband in question was pure gold but only came forward with the peal that he had been entrusted with the gold bars by an unknown person called Nathubhai, who could not be traced, but of casual acquaintance for being carried, which story was totally unbelievable. Appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order of the High Court upholding the order of acquittal recorded by the Judicial Magistrate are set aside and the respondent is convicted for having committed offences punishable under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 and under Section 85 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. He is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months on each count. The sentences shall run concurrently. The seized gold bars shall stand confiscated to the Government.
Issues:
1. Incorrect acquittal order by the Gujarat High Court. 2. Applicability of Section 123(1) of the Customs Act. 3. Requirement of evidence under the Gold (Control) Act. 4. Evaluation of the prosecution's evidence and witness testimony. Issue 1: Incorrect Acquittal Order The Supreme Court found the judgments of the Gujarat High Court and the Judicial Magistrate erroneous and causing a miscarriage of justice. The respondent was acquitted of offences under the Customs Act and the Gold (Control) Act, despite being found in possession of contraband gold bars with foreign markings. The High Court's reasoning, based on technicalities like the manner of apprehension and carrying the gold, was deemed flawed. Issue 2: Applicability of Section 123(1) of the Customs Act The Court criticized the lower courts for not applying the presumption under Section 123(1) of the Customs Act. The judgments failed to acknowledge the significance of the accused being found with contraband gold, triggering the statutory presumption that he was aware of the illegal nature of the goods. Previous court decisions were cited to emphasize the importance of this presumption in cases involving possession of contraband. Issue 3: Requirement of Evidence under the Gold (Control) Act Regarding the Gold (Control) Act, the Court highlighted the necessity for specific evidence to prove the nature of the contraband. While the prosecution had relied on a goldsmith's testimony to confirm the purity of the gold bars, the absence of a certificate from the Mint Master was noted. The Court stressed that positive evidence, such as a certificate from the Mint Master, is crucial to establish the contraband's composition under the Gold (Control) Act. Issue 4: Evaluation of Prosecution's Evidence The Court analyzed the prosecution's evidence, including witness testimonies and the accused's defense. Despite the respondent's claim of innocence as a carrier, his explanation was deemed implausible. The Court highlighted the credibility of the goldsmith's testimony, noting his experience in the field and the purity of the seized gold bars. The Court rejected the respondent's defense and overturned the acquittal, convicting him under both the Customs Act and the Gold (Control) Act, sentencing him to six months of rigorous imprisonment for each offence, to run concurrently. The seized gold bars were ordered to be confiscated to the Government.
|
