1970 (9) TMI 38 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 123 of the Customs Act in criminal trials.
2. Burden of proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act.
3. Legitimacy of the seizure of watches and the accused's connection to them.
4. Sufficiency of evidence to prove lawful importation of the seized watches.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 123 of the Customs Act in criminal trials:
The first submission was that the Chief Presidency Magistrate erred in applying Section 123 of the Customs Act to a criminal trial. Section 123 shifts the burden of proof to the accused to show that seized goods are not smuggled. The court referenced the Sea Customs Act of 1878 and its amendments, including Section 178A, which similarly shifted the burden of proof. The court noted that the Supreme Court had recognized the applicability of Section 178A in criminal trials in multiple cases. The Customs Act of 1962, which replaced the Sea Customs Act, included Section 123, mirroring Section 178A. The court concluded that Section 123 is applicable in criminal trials and is not confined to adjudication proceedings, as it was intended to address the special difficulties in detecting customs offences.

2. Burden of proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act:
The court clarified that the burden on the accused under Section 123 is not as stringent as the burden on the prosecution in a criminal trial. The accused is required to prove their case by a preponderance of probability, similar to civil proceedings, rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. The court cited Supreme Court rulings that supported this interpretation, emphasizing that the accused's burden is to establish a probable explanation rather than an irrefutable one.

3. Legitimacy of the seizure of watches and the accused's connection to them:
The accused denied any connection with the seized watches, claiming they belonged to one Premabhai Chibabhai, who was allowed to store them in the flat. The court found that the Chief Presidency Magistrate had rightly rejected this defense, as the evidence did not support the accused's claim. The court noted that the watches were seized under a reasonable belief that they were smuggled, based on the circumstances of the seizure, including the lack of documentation and the manner in which the watches were stored.

4. Sufficiency of evidence to prove lawful importation of the seized watches:
The court examined the evidence related to the importation and transportation of the watches. The accused had produced various transport certificates and invoices to support the claim that the watches were lawfully imported. The court found that the Chief Presidency Magistrate had not fully considered the evidence and had equated the burden of proof on the accused with that of the prosecution. The court analyzed the specific categories of watches and concluded that the accused had sufficiently discharged the burden of proof for each category, showing that the watches were lawfully imported.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence of the accused. The court held that the accused had satisfactorily discharged the burden under Section 123 of the Customs Act, proving that the seized watches were lawfully imported. The accused was acquitted of the charges, and the bail bond was ordered to be canceled.