S. 186 of the Sea Customs Act is an enabling provision and not a barring provision, and it does not bar prosecutions under the Act simply because S. 186 enables prosecution under any other law.

Headnote:
SEA CUSTOMS ACT - S. 167 (81) - CONFISCATION, PENALTY, AND PROSECUTION - S. 186 - SCOPE AND EFFECT - INGREDIENTS OF OFFENCE - INTENTION TO DEFRAUD OR EVADE DUTY OR PROHIBITION.
Fact of the Case:

Three appellants were convicted under S. 167 (81) of the Sea Customs Act for possession of smuggled gold with the intention to defraud the Government of duty or evade prohibition. The gold was recovered from one of the appellants, Vallabhdas Nagjibhai, who was carrying it to Bantwa for sale at a lower price than the market rate. The other two appellants, Narandas Nagjibhai and Vallabhdas Liladhar, were involved in the transaction and had advanced money to Vallabhdas Liladhar for the purchase of the gold.
Finding of the Court:

The court upheld the conviction of the appellants, relying on the statements made by them before the customs authorities, the presumption under S. 178-A of the Act, and other circumstantial evidence. The court rejected the appellants' arguments that the statements were inadmissible, that S. 25 of the Indian Evidence Act applied, that S. 186 of the Act barred the prosecution, and that the ingredients of S. 167 (81) were not satisfied.
Issues: 1. Whether the statements made to the customs authorities were admissible in evidence. 2. Whether S. 25 of the Indian Evidence Act applied to the statements made to the customs authorities. 3. Whether S. 186 of the Sea Customs Act barred the prosecution under S. 167 (81) of the Act. 4. Whether the ingredients of S. 167 (81) of the Act were satisfied.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The statements made to the customs authorities were admissible in evidence as they were signed by the appellants and there was no need to examine the lawyer who signed the statements along with the appellants. 2. S. 25 of the Indian Evidence Act did not apply as customs officers are not police officers. However, S. 24 would apply if it was proved that the statements were caused by inducement, threat, or promise, but the finding of the courts below was that the statements were not made on account of any inducement, threat, or promise. 3. S. 186 of the Act was an enabling provision and not a barring provision, and it did not bar prosecutions under the Act simply because S. 186 enabled prosecution under any other law. 4. The ingredients of S. 167 (81) of the Act were satisfied as it was proved that the gold was smuggled gold and whosoever brought it and whosoever dealt with it thereafter knowing it to be smuggled in the manner provided in the section must be held to have the intention of evading the payment of duty or violating the prohibition or restriction.
Final Decision: The appeals of the appellants were dismissed.

Judgment

WANCHOO, J.

These two appeals by special leave arise out of the same criminal trial before a magistrate at Porbunder and will be dealt with together. The three appellants along with one more person, namely, Keshavlal Nagjibhai were prosecuted under S. 167 (81) of the Sea Customs Act, No. 8 of 1878, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The prosecution case briefly was that Vallabhdas Liladhar, who is now dead, came in contact with an Arab from whom he purchased smuggled gold weighing a little more than 84 tolas on December 1, 1956. Before this, Vallabhdas Liladhar had borrowed Rs. 3,600/- from the other two appellants and Keshavlal about November 28, 1956, in order to make the purchase. After making the purchase, Vallabhdas Liladhar came to Porbunder to the house of the other two appellants and Keshavlal and informed them of the purchase and wanted their help in the disposal of the gold. The other two appellants namely, Narandas Nagjibhai and Vallabhdas Nagjibhai are brothers. Keshavlal was also the brother of these two appellants. The prosecution case further was that Narandas Nagjibhai asked Vallabhdas Nagjibhai to take the gold to Bantwa and sell it at the rate of Rs. 103/- or so per tola. Vallabhdas Nagjibhai was also instructed that in case he could not sell the gold at that rate he should contact Vallabhdas Liladhar and Narandas Nagjibhai at Bantwa bus stand from where they were to go to Junagadh to dispose of the gold it no suitable buyer could be found in Bantwa. Consequently Vallabhdas Nagjibhai proceeded to Bantwa by bus on December 2, 1956 in the afternoon. In the meantime information was received by Mehta who was Inspector of Customs about the smuggling of this gold. He consequently followed the bus in which Vallabhdas Nagjibhai was travelling and intercepted him at Kutiyana bus stand at about 3 p. m. The Deputy Superintendent of Customs was also with Inspector Mehta and Vallabhdas Nagjibhai was taken down from the bus at Kutiyana. On search in the presence of witnesses, five bars of gold weighing about 84 tolas were recovered from his possession. All these five bars bore marks of foreign origin and were taken in possession by the customs authorities after preparing a recovery list. Further investigation was made in the matter and eventually on October 7, 1957, the collector of Central Excise, Baroda confiscated the gold bars under S. 167 (8) of the Act read with S. 23 of the Foreign. Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- each on the three appellants and a penalty of Rs. 500/- on Keshavlal. Thereafter a complaint was filed by the Assistant Collector of Customs under S. 167 (81) of the Act before the magistrate at Porbunder on June 27, 1958.

2. The case of Vallabhdas Liladhar was that he had not purchased the gold from any Arab but had brought it with him from Karachi in the year 1946. Vallabhdas Nagjibhai admitted the recovery of gold from him but said that it belonged to Vallabhdas Liladhar and he was carrying it at the request of the latter and that he did not know that it was smuggled gold. Narandas Nagjibhai also admitted that Vallabhdas Liladhar had come to their house with the gold but added that it was not smuggled gold and that Vallabhdas Liladhar had told him that it belonged to him and was for sale. Keshavlal, the fourth person, who has been acquitted, said that he did not know anything about the matter and had no connection with it.

3. It may be added that the three appellants had made statements before the customs authorities and those statements were also put in evidence in support of the prosecution case. In those statements, they practically admitted the prosecution case that the gold was smuggled gold and they were trying to dispose it of. The magistrate convicted all the four persons under S. 167 (81) of the Act and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 500/-. He relied on the statements made by the appellants and Keshavlal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document