1979 (1) TMI 113 - SC - Customs

Conviction of Sevantilal Karsondas Modi for an offence under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 135 of the Customs Act 1962, and a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a year recorded by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay Held that - We would consider it extremely unsafe to regard the confession exhibit Z-383 signed by the appellant as having been made by him voluntarily and therefore trustworthy. The appellant, in our opinion, has shown the existence of circumstances which make it appear to the Court that the confession may well have been obtained in a manner which would bring it within the ambit of Section 24 of the Evidence Act, it being undisputed that the concerned officers of the Department of Customs were persons in authority within the meaning of that expression as used in the section. In the result the appeal succeeds and is accepted. The judgment of the High Court is reversed, the conviction recorded against and the sentence imposed upon the appellant by the learned trial Magistrate and upheld by the High Court are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge in its entirety

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the conviction under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 135(1)(a) and (b) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Evaluation of evidence and identification of the accused.
3. Voluntariness and truthfulness of the confession made by the accused.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Conviction under Section 120B of IPC and Section 135(1)(a) and (b) of the Customs Act:
The appellant was convicted by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, for an offence under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The High Court upheld this conviction but acquitted the appellant of a separate charge under Section 135(1)(a) and (b) of the Customs Act due to unreliable evidence. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining the validity of this conviction.

2. Evaluation of Evidence and Identification of the Accused:
The prosecution's case included multiple pieces of evidence against the appellant:
- Surveillance and Raid: Customs officials observed suspicious activities at a flat in Sagar Mandir, leading to a raid on September 14, 1966.
- Apprehension and Search: Accused Nos. 5, 6, 7, and 12 were apprehended with gold slabs. The appellant (Accused No. 13) was found peeping into the flat and subsequently captured.
- Physical Evidence: The appellant was found with keys fitting the flat's locks and wearing a bandi similar to one used for carrying gold slabs. Gold slabs and bangles were allegedly recovered at his instance.
- Confession: The appellant's confession detailed his involvement in smuggling activities.

The trial Magistrate found all these heads of evidence established, leading to the appellant's conviction. However, the High Court questioned the reliability of the identification by Customs officials and the recovery of gold slabs and bangles, deeming them unreliable. The High Court upheld the conviction based on other evidence, including the appellant's confession.

3. Voluntariness and Truthfulness of the Confession:
The Supreme Court scrutinized the confession's voluntariness and truthfulness. The appellant claimed his confession was coerced through physical assault by the Customs officers. The Court noted several factors:
- Injuries on Accused No. 15: Medical examination revealed injuries consistent with coercion, supporting the appellant's claim of assault.
- Early Plea of Coercion: The appellant's letter to the Additional Collector of Customs shortly after his release from custody detailed the coercion, adding credibility to his claim.
- Ethical Concerns: The Court observed that the Customs officials exhibited excessive zeal, crossing ethical boundaries.

The Supreme Court concluded that the circumstances suggested the confession might have been obtained through coercion, making it inadmissible under Section 24 of the Evidence Act. Consequently, the remaining evidence, without the confession, was insufficient to sustain the conviction.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found the appellant's conviction unsustainable due to the unreliable identification and recovery evidence, and the coerced confession. The Court reversed the High Court's judgment, setting aside the appellant's conviction and sentence, and acquitted him of all charges.