JUDGMENT - R.K. BATTA, J.:---All these revision applications arise out of the trial of the applicants in Customs Criminal Case No. 48/89/A, which was tried by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panaji. The applicants alongwith others were tried for offences under section 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. The prosecution case, in brief is that 207 silver ingots weighing approximately 30 kgs. valued at Rs. 4,22,48,225/- were clandestinely brought into Goa in an Arab Dhow and the same were to be transported in a trawler Gramdev Navdurga (hereinafter referred to as "the said trawler"), belonging to accused No. 4, who is the applicant in Criminal Revision Application No. 7/2000. The applicant in Criminal Revision Application No. 4/2000 was accused No. 8 before the trial Court and he was found on the Arab Dhow, which had clandestinely brought into Goa, India the said 207 silver ingots. The applicants in Criminal Revision Applications No. 5 and 6/2000, were accused Nos. 3 and 1 respectively, on the said trawler, which was to transport the said ingots clandestinely brought into Goa, India. The learned chief Judicial Magistrate held all the applicants guilty of the charge. Accused No. 2 who was tried alongwith the other accused was acquitted and the other accused No. 5, 7, 9 and 10 had pleaded guilty and they were convicted.

3. The applicants had challenged their convictions and sentences before the learned Sessions Judge, Panaji, and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa, has dismissed the appeal of all the applicants. This is how the applicants are before this Court in revision against concurrent findings of two courts below. Before proceeding ahead, it is necessary to bear in mind that the scope of revision is limited and the revisional Court does not interfere unless it can be established that the findings of the courts below are perverse. The Apex Court in (State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri)1, 1999(2) S.C.C. 452, upon which reliance was placed by learned advocate for the respondents, has laid down that the jurisdiction under section 401 Criminal Procedure Code is one of supervisory jurisdiction which is exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice; the revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an Appellate Court, nor can it be treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction; and ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court, which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice.

4. Learned advocates for the applicants have urged before me three points, namely :---

1. The Customs Authorities while recording the statement under section 108 of the Customs Act, had not followed the safeguards provided under section 164 Criminal Procedure Code;

2. The applicants in Criminal Revision Applications No. 4, 5 and 6/2000 had been detained by the Customs Authorities from 4th October, 1988 to 7th October, 1988, which amounts to arrest of the said applicants and the statements of these applicants were recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act during this period of detention after giving threats and exercising duress. In this connection it is pointed out that the medical papers of the applicants show that they were assaulted and, as such, the statements of these applicants recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, cannot be said to be voluntary; and

3. No link has been established between the Arab Dhow and the said trawler.

5. Insofar as the first point is concerned, the law on this aspect is no longer res integra and it is settled by pronouncements in different cases. I had, myself occasion to deal with this aspect in greater details in (Smt. Natalina Sanches v. Shri R. S. Gajjar)2, Criminal Revi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document