9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1965 (10) TMI 9 - SC - CustomsWhat is the intent required in a case coming under Section 167(81) and whether such intent can be said to arise at all in a case where the import is complete and the prohibited goods are in the possession of a third person who had nothing to do with the import? Held that - In the view that we have taken of the meaning of Section 167(81) it follows that on facts found Sitaram Agarwala was concerned in dealing with prohibited or restricted goods. It also follows on facts found that he had the necessary knowledge and intent to evade the prohibition or the restriction even though he dealt with the goods after the smuggling was over and was not in any way concerned with actual smuggling. He would therefore be guilty under Section 167(81) of the Act. We therefore allow the appeal, set aside the order of acquittal made by the High Court, restore the order of the Presidency Magistrate and confirm the sentence passed on Sitaram Agarwala by the Magistrate. It also follows on facts found that Wang Chit Khaw is guilty under Section 167(81) inasmuch as he was dealing with prohibited or restricted goods and had the necessary knowledge and intent as required under that section. We therefore allow the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court, restore that of the Presidency Magistrate and confirm the sentence passed on him by the Magistrate.
Issues Involved:
1. Construction of Section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878. 2. Mens rea (knowledge and intention) required under Section 167(81). 3. Scope of the term "import" under Section 167(81). 4. Distinction between customs offences and criminal offences. 5. Interpretation of the term "concerned in any manner dealing with" under Section 167(81). 6. Applicability of Section 167(81) to persons dealing with smuggled goods post-import. 7. Evaluation of evidence and facts in specific cases. Detailed Analysis: 1. Construction of Section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878: The judgment emphasizes the strict construction of penal statutes, stating that courts must ensure the offense is within the plain meaning of the words used and must not strain the language to cover cases not explicitly included. The court cannot fill gaps (casus omissus) left by the legislature. 2. Mens rea (knowledge and intention) required under Section 167(81): The court identified two essential elements of mens rea under Section 167(81): knowledge of the prohibition or restriction and the intention to evade such prohibition or restriction. It is not sufficient for a person to merely know about the prohibition; they must also have the intention to evade it. 3. Scope of the term "import" under Section 167(81): The term "import" under Section 167(81) was given a broader interpretation. The process of import does not end when the goods cross the customs barrier but continues until the goods are delivered to the importer, physically or constructively. This broader interpretation ensures that various acts connected to the import process, such as carrying, removing, depositing, harboring, keeping, or concealing smuggled goods, are covered under the section. 4. Distinction between customs offences and criminal offences: The judgment distinguishes between customs offences, which are dealt with by customs officers and involve penalties like confiscation, and criminal offences, which are triable by magistrates and involve imprisonment or fines. Section 167(81) pertains to criminal offences and requires proof of both knowledge and intent to defraud the government or evade restrictions. 5. Interpretation of the term "concerned in any manner dealing with" under Section 167(81): The court interpreted the phrase "concerned in any manner dealing with" broadly. It includes any transaction or attempted transaction relating to prohibited goods, done with prior arrangement or agreement. The court held that even an attempt to purchase smuggled goods, if done with prior arrangement, constitutes being "concerned in dealing with" such goods. 6. Applicability of Section 167(81) to persons dealing with smuggled goods post-import: The court held that Section 167(81) applies not only to those involved in the actual smuggling but also to those who deal with smuggled goods after the smuggling is complete. The intent to evade prohibition or defraud the government of duty persists as long as the prohibition or restriction remains in force or the duty remains unpaid. This interpretation prevents a scenario where smuggled goods could be freely dealt with once they have evaded initial customs checks. 7. Evaluation of evidence and facts in specific cases: - Case 1 (Sitaram Agarwala and Wang Chit Khaw): The court found that Sitaram Agarwala, who attempted to purchase smuggled gold, was "concerned in dealing with" prohibited goods. The Chinese accused, Wang Chit Khaw, was found guilty of possessing and attempting to sell smuggled gold. Both were convicted under Section 167(81). - Case 2 (Amin Khan): The court upheld the High Court's acquittal of Amin Khan due to insufficient evidence proving that he acquired possession of the gold bars at the specified time and place with the requisite knowledge and intent. - Case 3 (Respondents in Bombay High Court): The court remanded the cases back to the High Court for reconsideration of other points raised by the respondents, as the initial acquittal was based on a misinterpretation of Section 167(81). In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the broad scope of Section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act, emphasizing strict construction of penal statutes, the necessity of proving both knowledge and intent, and the applicability of the section to post-import dealings with smuggled goods.
|
