IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J.
Assistant Commissioner Of Customs Through Ashokkumar Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Bashir Hasam Sumbhania – Respondent
R/Criminal Revision Application No. 904 of 2018
Decided on : 07-12-2022
Customs Act, 1962 – Section 108, 111, 135, 123 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 – Burden of proving fact specially within knowledge – Revision Application is filed challenging an order passed by Additional Sessions rendered in Criminal Appeal whereby respondent – Accused came to be acquitted of charge – Held, Case of prosecution declared hostile – Judgment of appellate Court recovery examined by prosecution has also not supported case of prosecution – Court acquitting accused as also findings recorded by Trial court – Court saw no reason to interfere with order of acquittal recorded by appellate Court absence of any concrete material and arguments holding accused guilty of offence alleged while exercising revision jurisdiction – Application rejected.
ORDER :
1. This Revision Application is filed challenging an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Devbhoomi Dwarka at Khambhaliya, dated 04.10.2017 rendered in Criminal Appeal No.4 of 1996, whereby the respondent – accused came to be acquitted of charge under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), in an appeal preferred by him.
2. As per the prosecution case, on a complaint filed by the Department, that on 14.05.1986, Police Sub Inspector of Salaya received an intelligence/ secret information regarding bringing of smuggled goods by a Vessel M.S.V. Sahe-Al-Zuberi No.BDI-20, lying at Salaya Jetty, whereupon he informed the Customs Officers at Salaya, who boarded the vessel, that on rummaging the vessel, it was found to contain several goods of foreign origin like video cassettes, recorders, synthetics fabrics etc., for which the crews on Board the vessel could not tender any documents showing lawful import/possession thereof. The said goods worth of Rs.3,84,657/- were placed under seizure as detailed and described in the panchnama dated 14.05.1986 made in this behalf, in the reasonable belief that the same are smuggled goods and therefore, liable to be confiscated under “the Act”. The said goods were confiscated as per the Additional Collector (Preventive) Gujarat, Ahmedabad vide Adjudication Order. It is further alleged in the complaint that it was revealed that the said vessel Sahe-Al-Zuberi BDI No.20 was tandel by Shri Bashir Hasan Sumbhania – present respondent accused who had loaded smuggled goods in the vessel while it was in Dubai. It is further alleged in the complaint that the said vessel was used for importation and carrying the said contraband goods and was taken under seizure 15.05.1986 under regular panchnama dated 15.05.1986 on a reasonable belief that the said vessel was used for carrying the smuggled goods. The owner of the vessel is Smt. Sakina Hasam Burhani. It is further alleged that the said vessel had 15 crews on the vessel including the Tindel Shri Basir Hasam Sumbhaniya – respondent accused.
2.1 It is further alleged that the Customs Officer of Salaya, on receipt of information through Salaya Police, recovered 34 packets of contraband goods on 14.05.1986 at about 3:30 hours from vessel, but not a single crew, on demand, of said vessel could produce any documents showing legal import and possession and control in respect of the said 34 packets. It is further alleged that immediate investigation was carried out and it revealed that one Bashir Hasam Sumbhaniya of vessel Sahe-Al-Zuberi BDI No.20, loaded these 34 packets of contraband goods valued at Rs.3,84,657/- from Dubai for Salaya and before it reached to Salaya, these 34 packets lying in the vessel were unloaded in a mechanized fishing boat by the crews of the vessel, near Chak Island as per the instructions of the Tindel, the vessel then arrived at Salaya Port and it was boarded by the Customs Staff at Salaya. Nothing objectionable was found inside the vessel at the time of boarding. Then after, the Customs Officers left the vessel. The Tindel of the vessel directed the crews that 34 packets already unloaded in the fishing boat are to be reloaded in the vessel by tonight i.e. early hours on 13.5.1986, night tide. Accordingly, the crew on the Board of the vessel reloaded the said packets of the contraband goods from a mechanized fishing boat to vessel and in view of this, the said persons were arrested and produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Jamnagar on 17.05.1986.
2.2 It is further alleged that statements of all the crews and Tindel were recorded under Section 108 of “the Act” before the Superintendent of Customs, Salaya, and in view of all these, Shri Bashir Hasam Sumbhaniya has committed an offence under Section 135 of “the Act”, inasmuch as he was knowingly concerned with the aforesaid concealing, harboring, desisting, transporting or in any other manner dealing with the said smuggled good
Possession of smuggled goods under the Customs Act confirms liability for prosecution without proper documentation; the accused must prove otherwise.
Statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act are admissible unless proven involuntary; concurrent findings of conviction upheld when based on sufficient evidence despite challenges regarding the a....
Penalties under the Customs Act require establishing active involvement, mens rea, and knowledge of the illegal act through cogent, admissible evidence. Allegations based on untested statements or va....
Seizure of smuggled foreign Wrist Watches – Sentence can be reduced where mitigating factors are heavily loaded in favour of accused.
The court emphasized the importance of examining the voluntariness of a statement and the need for corroboration of evidence, rejecting a belated retraction and upholding the penalty based on the tru....
The prosecution must provide credible evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as mere confession under coercion lacks probative value.
The prosecution must prove the voluntary nature of statements given under section 108 of the Customs Act, and the statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C cannot replace substantive evidence.
Fraudulent amendment of shipping bills requires adherence to statutory evidential procedures; failure renders penalties invalid.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.