2014 (4) TMI 1023 - HC - Customs

Validity of Trial Court order - Smuggling of 400 gold biscuits Prosecution of Carriers - Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Whether the admission of co-accused u/s 108 of the Customs Act can be the basis of conviction of other co-accused Held that - Trial Court has rightly held that statement of co-accused under Section 108 of the Act against the co-accused is a weak type of evidence and conviction of co-accused cannot be based on the uncorroborated statement of co-accused - Counsel for the appellant (Customs) is fair enough to concede that there is no corroborative evidence against Amrik Singh @ Chamku and Balwinder Singh for warranting their conviction u/s 135 of the Customs Act except statements of co-accused under Section 108 of Customs Act - Appeal preferred by the Customs Department stands dismissed being without any merit Decided against Customs. Validity of Trial Court Order - Unchallenged conviction - Smuggling of gold biscuits Prosecution of Carriers - Quantum of sentence Protracted trial of 21 years - Held that - Learned Senior counsel for the revisionist has not challenged the conviction of both the accused Ajit Pal Singh Sethi and Daljit Singh u/s 135 of the Customs Act - There is concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below in respect of guilt of revisionists u/s 135 of the Customs Act - So, the conviction recorded by both the Courts below in respect of offence under Section 135 of Customs Act against both the revisionists stands affirmed. Accuseds have already undergone protracted trial of more than 21 years - Even according to the prosecution, the petitioners were simply carriers Relying upon Jeevraj B. Jain v. Central Excise & Customs Deptt. and another 1999 (2) TMI 625 - SUPREME COURT SC had directed the accused to pay a fine of ₹ 1,00,000/- where the occurrence related to the recovery of 600 gold biscuits and the matter was 30 years old Therefore, keeping in view the ratio of the said authority, the sentence of accuseds stands reduced to the period already undergone - However, their sentence of fine enhanced to ₹ 2,00,000/- each instead of ₹ 10,000/- as imposed by the trial Court Decided partly in favour of Customs.

Summary

Issues:
1. Conviction and sentencing of accused under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Admissibility and weight of co-accused statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act.
3. Revision of sentence based on the age of the case and role of the accused as carriers.

Issue 1: Conviction and Sentencing under Section 135 of the Customs Act:
The case involved two accused, Ajit Pal Singh Sethi and Daljit Singh, who were sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000 each for a case under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The prosecution's case detailed the recovery of 728 gold biscuits valued at Rs. 3,65,00,464 from a jeep intercepted by officials. Statements of the accused admitted their involvement in transporting the gold. The trial court convicted and sentenced the accused, a decision upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. However, the High Court dismissed the appeal by the Customs Department, finding no merit in convicting other co-accused based solely on the uncorroborated statements of these accused carriers.

Issue 2: Admissibility of Co-Accused Statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act:
The trial court's judgment was based on the statements of the co-accused under Section 108 of the Customs Act. However, the High Court emphasized that such statements are considered weak evidence and cannot solely lead to the conviction of other co-accused. The court cited precedents to support this position, highlighting the need for corroborative evidence to establish guilt. The defense counsel for the acquitted co-accused supported the trial court's decision, and the High Court upheld the acquittal based on the lack of corroborative evidence against them.

Issue 3: Revision of Sentence based on Case Age and Role as Carriers:
In the criminal revision petition, the accused did not challenge their conviction under Section 135 of the Customs Act. The High Court affirmed the conviction and focused on revising the sentence. Considering the age of the case (more than 21 years) and the accused's role as carriers, the court reduced the sentence to the period already served in custody. The fine imposed by the trial court was enhanced to Rs. 2,00,000 each, to be paid within two months. Failure to pay would result in serving the remaining part of the sentence. The court referenced a previous case to justify the revised sentence, emphasizing the need for a balance between punishment and the circumstances of the accused.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, the court's reasoning, and the final decisions made by the High Court in the case.