1972 (2) TMI 37 - SC - Customs

Conviction of the appellants under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, challenged Held that - Apart from statement Ex. 17 which was written under the supervision of Robb P.W. and was signed by him shows that statement Ex. 17 represents what had been stated by the appellant we find that the other circumstances of the case clearly point to the guilt of the appellant. Evidence of Wagh P.W. shows that the appellant was found present on the back seat of the car from the dicky of which gold was recovered. It is also in evidence that the said car before the recovery of gold was brought at an odd hour of 2 a.m. and taken on the kutcha track towards salt pans near Bassein bridge. The car was thereafter parked on the kutcha track near that bridge and its engine was kept running. After the car was intercepted the Customs Officials interrogated the appellant and Wali Mohammad accused. No statement was then made by the appellant that he did not know about the presence of gold in the dicky. The fact that the mud on the gunny bags was wet shows that the gunny bags had been placed on the dicky shortly before they were examined by the Customs Officials. All these incriminating circumstances, in our opinion, clearly point to the guilt of the appellant. We are satisfied that the conviction of the appellant was fully justified. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of Section 104 of the Customs Act.
2. Admissibility and reliability of confessional statements.
3. Guilt of the appellant based on circumstantial evidence.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Violation of Section 104 of the Customs Act:
The appellant contended that there was a violation of Section 104 of the Customs Act, which mandates that the accused should be produced before a magistrate without unnecessary delay. The High Court dismissed this contention, and the Supreme Court did not find any merit in this argument, thereby upholding the lower court's decision.

2. Admissibility and Reliability of Confessional Statements:
The appellant argued that the confessional statements recorded by the Customs Officer, Robb, were not true and could not be acted upon without sufficient corroboration. The Supreme Court noted that the admissibility of such statements is settled by the precedent set in Romesh Chandra Mehta v. State of West Bengal, wherein it was held that statements recorded by Customs Officers are admissible and not hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act or Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The appellant's counsel suggested that portions of the confessional statement were introduced by the Customs Officers, but the Court found no evidence to support this claim. The Court observed that Robb's testimony confirmed that the statement was recorded accurately and signed by the appellant. The Court also dismissed the argument that the use of the word "we" in the statement was improbable, given the circumstances indicating that the accused were acting in concert.

3. Guilt of the Appellant Based on Circumstantial Evidence:
Apart from the confessional statement, the Supreme Court considered other incriminating circumstances. The appellant was found in the car from which gold was recovered, and the car was intercepted at an odd hour on a kutcha track near Bassein bridge with its engine running. The appellant did not deny knowledge of the gold when interrogated by Customs Officials. The wet mud on the gunny bags indicated that the gold had been placed in the car shortly before the interception. These circumstances, combined with the confessional statement, led the Court to conclude that the appellant's guilt was clearly established.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, and Section 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. The Court found no cogent ground to interfere with the sentence and dismissed the appeal.