9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Application for enhancement of sentence | Conviction under section 135(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 | Acquittal under Defence of India Rules | Challenge to conviction | Arguments raised by defense | Burden of proof for property liable to confiscation | Requirement to prove imported goods as smuggled | Evidence regarding gold being smuggled | Conclusion on conviction and sentence | Refund of fine. Analysis: The judgment involves an application for the enhancement of a sentence passed upon the accused for an offense under section 135(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The accused was convicted for possessing gold biscuits with foreign markings, and the police found them concealed in the cavities of his sandals. The accused was acquitted of another offense under the Defence of India Rules. The State filed a revision application seeking enhancement of the sentence imposed on the accused. The defense challenged the conviction, arguing that the prosecution evidence was false, and there was a lack of evidence to prove the gold biscuits were smuggled goods or that the accused knew they were smuggled. The court analyzed each contention raised by the defense. Regarding the first argument, the court found abundant evidence to prove that gold was recovered from the accused's sandals, dismissing the defense's claim of false evidence. However, the court agreed with the defense on the second argument. The prosecution failed to establish that the gold seized from the accused was smuggled, as required under section 135(b) of the Customs Act. The burden of proof was on the prosecution to demonstrate that the gold was imported contrary to the prohibition in force, but the evidence fell short of proving this fact. The court discussed previous Supreme Court decisions emphasizing the need for proof that the seized goods were smuggled. The court highlighted that the mere presence of foreign markings on the gold did not conclusively prove it was smuggled. The prosecution's reliance on a statement by a witness that the gold was smuggled was deemed insufficient to establish the offense under section 135(b) of the Customs Act. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction under section 135(b) of the Customs Act and ordered the refund of any fine paid by the accused. The court dismissed the State's revision application for enhancement of the sentence, as the prosecution had failed to prove the essential elements of the offense. The judgment focused on the burden of proof in cases involving confiscated goods and the requirement to establish goods as smuggled under the Customs Act.
|
