SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(SC) 195

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Amad Noormamad Bakali – Appellant
Versus
The State of Gujarat and Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1000 of 2012, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1232-1237 of 2012
Decided On : 23-02-2026

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Amar Dave, Sr. Adv. Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AOR Mr. Rishi Maheshwari, Adv. Ms. Anne Mathew, Adv. Mr. Bharat Sood, Adv. Mr. Jai Govind M J, Adv. Mr. Jashan Vir Singh, Adv. Mr. Yadunandan Bansal, Adv. Mr. Ravi Panwar, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Swati Ghildiyal , AOR Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
Seizure of smuggled foreign Wrist Watches – Sentence can be reduced where mitigating factors are heavily loaded in favour of accused.

Headnote:

Customs Act, 1962 – Section 135(1)(b)(i) – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 24, 30, or 34 – Seizure of smuggled foreign Wrist Watches – Conviction and sentence – Findings of guilt recorded by Trial Court, which stand concurrently affirmed by appellate Court as well as High Court, do not suffer from any perversity, illegality, or manifest error warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of Constitution of India – Recovery relates to year 1985 and offending consignment of watches was recovered lying in an abandoned condition – Conviction of appellants seems to be primarily based on confessional statements recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 – Conscious possession of smuggled goods is not attributed to appellants – Several co-accused persons were acquitted by trial Court – Some of appellants are reported to have passed away during pendency of appeals – Surviving appellants are now of advanced age and have undergone substantial period of incarceration, which is more than statutory minimum sentence of six months contemplated under proviso to Section 135 (1)(b)(i) of Customs Act, 1962 as it then existed – Ends of justice would be served by reducing sentence to term already undergone by appellants – While affirming Judgment of conviction sentence awarded to appellants reduced to period already undergone by them. (Paras 23, 25, 26, 27 and 28)

Facts of the case:

These two appeals arise from common judgment dated 21st December, 2010 passed by Single Judge of Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad in Criminal Revision Applications whereby, revisions preferred by original accused were dismissed and their conviction for offence punishable under Section 135(1)(b)(i) of Customs Act, 1962 was affirmed.

Findings of Court:

Since, appellants are on bail, they need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged.

Result : Appeals partly allowed.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP MEHTA, J.

1. Heard.

2. These two appeals arise from common judgment dated 21st December, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad1 [Hereinafter being referred to as “High Court”] in Criminal Revision Application No. 381, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390 of 2005 whereby, the revisions preferred by the original accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 were dismissed and their conviction for offence punishable under section 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 was affirmed.

3. The details of revisions preferred by the original accused persons are noted herein-below:

Revision

Preferred by

Criminal Application No. Revision 381

Amad Noormamad Bakali (accused No. 2)

Criminal Application No. Revision 385

Aamad Alimamad Paleja (accused No. 1)

Criminal Application No. Revision 386

Anwarali Abdula (accused No. 5) Sama

Criminal Application No. Revision 387

Chamanlal Kakubhai Thakkar (accused No. 7)

Criminal Application No. Revision 388

Ismail Alimamad (accused No. 3) Paleja

Criminal Application No. Revision 389

Ismail Ibrahim Mandhara (accused No. 11)

Criminal Application No. Revision 390

Abdul Jumma Mandhara (accused No. 6)

Brief Facts:

4. The case of the prosecution in brief is that secret intelligence was received by the Customs officers at Mandvi indicating that prohibited smuggled foreign wrist watches had been concealed near a fisherman’s jetty. Specifically, it was reported that two jute sacks containing smuggled wrist watches of foreign brands such as Seiko, Citizen, and Ricoh were concealed in two pits located on a newly laid road, opposite to the Mandvi Gram Panchayat Rest House. Acting on this intelligence report, on 30th April, 1985 at about 9:00 p.m. Customs officers from Mandvi, accompanied by two independent panch witnesses, proceeded to the site and conducted a search. During excavation of the pits, two jute sacks were recovered. One sack contained ten packets, while the other contained seventeen packets. Based on their packaging, quantity, and nature, the Customs officers formed a reasonable belief that the contents were smuggled foreign wrist watches. The seized sacks were then shifted to the Customs House, Mandvi, where, in the presence of panch witnesses, they were opened and examined. Upon close inspection, a total of 777 foreign-made wrist watches and 879 wrist watch straps were found, with an estimated value of Rs. 2,22,190/-. A seizure panchnama was prepared on 1st May 1985, and the goods were confiscated under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, on the reasonable belief that they had been illegally imported into India. Further investigation revealed that the seized goods had been smuggled into India during the first week of February, 1985 aboard the ship Safina-Tul-Firdaus H.M.V. 643. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were identified as the owners of the ship, while accused No. 3 was its captain. Other accused persons were alleged to have actively participated in concealing, storing, transporting, selling, or facilitating the disposal of the smuggled goods. Some of the accused were found to have kept the smuggled watches in their custody, while others sold portions of the goods or retained sale proceeds. Cash amounts derived from such illegal sales were also seized from some of the accused persons.

5. The prosecution alleged that all accused knowingly dealt with smuggled foreign goods, despite being aware that such goods were liable to confiscation under law. They intentionally concealed, transported, sold, or otherwise handled the smuggled watches, thereby committing the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. After obtaining sanction from the Collector of Customs, Ahmedabad, a criminal complaint was filed on 19th January, 1987 against 21 accused persons for the above offence. The trial Court took cognizance and framed charges again

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top