1963 (8) TMI 1 - SC - Customs

Whether the seizure as alleged by the prosecution has been proved? Held that - We have, therefore, come to the conclusion that the construction put by the High Court on the notification is right, and Lal Singh, being an officer in the District of Barmer which is mentioned in the Schedule, was an officer for the entire area which formed the jurisdiction of the Collector of Land Customs. Delhi, including the place where the seizure was made, and was therefore competent to make the seizure. Here, however, there is an additional circumstance that a pointsman of the Railway, not expected to have so much gold in his possession, was carrying the gold which was, as already mentioned in six blocks and 22 bars apart from some small pieces and one pair of murkees. The total quantity was as much as 286 tolas and 11 annas, that is, about three kilograms. When all these circumstances are taken together, it is not possible to accept learned counsel s suggestion that he might be carrying the gold innocently having purchased it from somebody. In our opinion, the High Court has rightly held that all the ingredients of the offence under s. 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act have been established. It may be mentioned that it has not been disputed before us that if we believe the story of the recovery of the gold from the appellant, the circumstances are sufficient to establish that Lal Singh seized the gold in the reasonable belief that these were smuggled goods. Appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Justification of High Court in disturbing trial court's finding on seizure of gold.
2. Authority of Lal Singh to seize the gold at the place of seizure.
3. Proof of mens rea necessary to constitute the offence under s. 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification of High Court in disturbing trial court's finding on seizure of gold:

The High Court overturned the trial court's finding that the seizure of gold from the accused had not been proved. The trial court had acquitted the accused on grounds that the prosecution failed to establish the recovery of gold and that Lal Singh lacked authority to conduct the search and seizure. The High Court, however, believed Lal Singh's testimony regarding the seizure and was satisfied with the evidence presented. The Supreme Court examined the evidence, including the testimony of Lal Singh and the defense witness Poonam Chand. Despite the absence of corroborative testimony from the search witnesses listed in the seizure memo, the Supreme Court concluded that the story of recovery of gold from the accused was credible, supported indirectly by Poonam Chand's account of the search.

2. Authority of Lal Singh to seize the gold at the place of seizure:

The defense argued that Lal Singh was not authorized to conduct the seizure as the place of seizure was not within the districts specified in the notification appointing Customs Officers. The trial court had accepted this argument, but the High Court disagreed, interpreting the notification to mean that officers listed in the schedule were Customs Officers for the entire area under the jurisdiction of the Collector of Land Customs, Delhi. The Supreme Court supported the High Court's interpretation, stating that the notification appointed officers as Land Customs Officers for the entire area adjoining the West Pakistan frontier, which included the place of seizure. Thus, Lal Singh was competent to make the seizure.

3. Proof of mens rea necessary to constitute the offence under s. 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act:

The defense contended that even if the gold was smuggled, the prosecution failed to prove the necessary mens rea (intent) required for the offence. The Supreme Court noted that while s. 178-A of the Sea Customs Act placed the burden of proving that the gold was not smuggled on the accused, it did not relieve the prosecution of proving that the accused knowingly carried the gold to evade import regulations. The Court found that the circumstances of the case, including the manner and quantity of gold carried, indicated that the accused knowingly intended to evade the prohibition on gold import. The High Court's finding that all ingredients of the offence were established was upheld.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment. The Court concluded that the seizure of gold was valid, Lal Singh had the authority to conduct the seizure, and the prosecution had established the necessary mens rea for the offence under s. 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act.

← Previous Next →