9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Conviction under Section 23(1A) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 and Section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act based on possession of gold bars.
Analysis: 1. The judgment involves the conviction of two appellants under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and the Sea Customs Act for possession of gold bars. The case revolves around the recovery of 720 gold bars from the cabin of one of the appellants, an Apprentice Engineer, and the alleged involvement of the Second Engineer in the same. 2. The prosecution presented evidence regarding the recovery of gold bars from the cabin of the Apprentice Engineer, concealed in secret compartments. However, the court noted that the mere presence of the gold bars in the cabin does not conclusively prove conscious possession by the Apprentice Engineer. Witnesses providing initial evidence failed to appear for cross-examination, leading to their statements being expunged from the record, weakening the case against the Apprentice Engineer. 3. Regarding the Second Engineer, the evidence against him included an invitation to a crew member to bring gold into the ship at an earlier port and letters found in his cabin hinting at involvement in a business to increase wealth. However, the court found these pieces of evidence insufficient to definitively link him to the gold bars found in the Apprentice Engineer's cabin. 4. The court emphasized the importance of establishing conscious possession of the gold bars by the accused individuals for a conviction under the relevant acts. The presumption under Section 178A of the Sea Customs Act shifts the burden of proof to the accused to show that the seized items are not smuggled. However, in this case, the prosecution failed to establish conscious possession by either of the appellants, leading to the setting aside of their convictions and sentences. 5. Ultimately, the court allowed the appeals of both appellants, setting aside their convictions and ordering their immediate release due to the lack of conclusive evidence proving their conscious possession of the gold bars as required by the law.
|
