1971 (7) TMI 55 - SC - Customs

Whether A-1 could be convicted of any overt act which was pursuant to a conspiracy for which he had not been charged and which was the result of quite a different conspiracy? Held that - There can be no manner of doubt that A-1 played a leading role in extensive smuggling operations on his own admission, he had been illegally smuggling Indian currency in specie (for which, however, no charges were preferred against him). The entirety of facts and circumstances do create a serious suspicion of the commission of offences with which A-1 was charged and of which he is being acquitted. But according to the system of jurisprudence which we follow, conviction cannot be based on suspicion nor on the conscience of the Court being morally satisfied about the complicity of an accused person. He can be convicted and sentenced only if the prosecution proves its case beyond all reasonable doubt. This is what it has failed to do with regard to A-1. His appeal is allowed and his conviction and sentences on the various charges are hereby set aside. As regards appellants Budhoo and others we are unable to accede to the suggestion that they were as innocent as has been sought to be made out. We have no doubt that the High Court rightly upheld their conviction. Appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Section 135(b)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Conviction under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947.
3. Criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Admissibility of evidence and confessions.
5. Sufficiency of evidence to establish the nature of smuggled goods.
6. Acquittal and sentencing considerations.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction under Section 135(b)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962:

The appellant, Gian Mahtani, was convicted by the High Court under Section 135(b)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962, for smuggling luxury goods and watches. The High Court found that Mahtani was involved in smuggling goods worth Rs. 35,000 through carriers who arrived on the ship S.S. Roma and goods worth 20,000 Dollars through carriers who arrived on the ship S.S. Asia. However, the Supreme Court noted that the prosecution failed to establish the exact nature of the goods smuggled. The evidence relied upon, including the testimony of Harjani and various cables, was insufficient to conclusively prove the nature of the smuggled goods. The Supreme Court held that a grave suspicion cannot replace proof and acquitted Mahtani of these charges.

2. Conviction under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947:

The High Court convicted Mahtani under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, for importing goods otherwise than as bona fide personal baggage (charges 63 to 66). The High Court relied on the deposition of Harjani, the confession of Mahtani, and the testimony of witnesses Jagtiani and Vaswani. However, the Supreme Court found that the Trial Magistrate had rightly discarded the evidence of Jagtiani and Vaswani and questioned the voluntary nature of Mahtani's confession. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside Mahtani's conviction on these charges as well.

3. Criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code:

The prosecution alleged that Mahtani, along with others, entered into a criminal conspiracy to smuggle luxury goods from Singapore to Bombay. The Trial Magistrate acquitted Mahtani of the conspiracy charges, finding that he was involved in a separate smuggling business independent of the alleged conspiracy. The High Court upheld this finding, noting that no clear inter-connection was established between Harjani and Mahtani. The Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts, emphasizing that the prosecution failed to prove the conspiracy charge against Mahtani.

4. Admissibility of evidence and confessions:

The High Court relied on Mahtani's confession (Ext. Z-70) to convict him. However, the Trial Magistrate had found that the confession was not voluntary. The Supreme Court, after considering the reasoning of both courts, concluded that the Trial Magistrate was justified in not relying on the confession due to doubts about its voluntary nature. The Supreme Court emphasized that conviction cannot be based on inadmissible evidence or retracted confessions unless corroborated by other reliable evidence.

5. Sufficiency of evidence to establish the nature of smuggled goods:

The Supreme Court highlighted the lack of evidence regarding the exact nature of the goods smuggled by Mahtani. The High Court's reliance on the amount spent on carriers and the cables exchanged between Mahtani and his associates was deemed insufficient to establish the nature of the smuggled goods. The Supreme Court reiterated that suspicion cannot replace proof, and the prosecution must establish the nature and description of the smuggled goods beyond reasonable doubt.

6. Acquittal and sentencing considerations:

The Supreme Court allowed Mahtani's appeal, setting aside his conviction and sentences on various charges due to insufficient evidence. The Court emphasized that conviction cannot be based on suspicion or moral satisfaction but must be grounded in proof beyond reasonable doubt. As for the other appellants (Budhoo and others), the Supreme Court upheld their conviction, agreeing with the High Court that they were knowingly involved in smuggling valuable goods. Their appeals were dismissed, and they were ordered to surrender to their bail bonds.

In summary, the Supreme Court acquitted Gian Mahtani due to insufficient evidence and questionable admissibility of his confession, while upholding the conviction of the other appellants based on the evidence presented.

← Previous Next →