Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bechu Kurian Thomas
Assistant Commissioner of Customs – Appellant
Versus
Edwin Andrew Minihan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J.
An Irish citizen was found in possession of ten gold bars at the Cochin International Airport on 13.07.2015. He was soon indicted for smuggling gold and prosecuted in C.C. No.411/2016 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (EO), Ernakulam. By judgment dated 26.03.2019, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the accused. Hence, this appeal.
2. The prosecution was initiated based upon a complaint filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, alleging offences punishable under sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short 'the Act').
3. The prosecution case was that the accused arrived at Cochin International Airport on 13.07.2015 on Emirates Flight EK 534 from Dubai. He had with him two pieces of hand baggage. At the exit gate of the airport terminal, he was intercepted and found in possession of a customs declaration form duly filled in, with the column for declaration of Gold Jewellery (Over Free Allowance) encircled. Prosecution alleged that when the accused was questioned on whether he carried any dutiable goods, he replied in the negative. However, since the X-ray showed a dark image in his coat pockets, a
A confession under section 108 of the Customs Act must be proven voluntary and reliable; mere marking of documents does not equate to proof, and appellate courts should respect acquittals unless the ....
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.
The tribunal's reliance on witness statements was found flawed due to procedural non-compliance, leading to the dismissal of appeals against penalties under the Customs Act.
Confessions of co-accused cannot solely establish guilt without independent corroborating evidence; insufficient cross-examination rights compromise the evidentiary value of witness testimonies.
Possession of unaccounted foreign gold bars leads to conviction under Customs and Gold Control Acts, where failure to provide lawful explanation substantiates charges of smuggling.
Point of law: Section 112(a) of the Act is applicable to a person, who in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any action, which act or omission would render such goods liable for confiscation ....
The court ruled that the statutory provisions under the Customs Act render the offence non-bailable due to the substantial value of contraband, emphasizing public interest and evidence integrity.
The burden of proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act lies with the accused to prove lawful possession of seized goods, which was not met in this case.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
