HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.
Union of India - Appellant
Versus
Dasang Bhutia - Respondent
Crl. Rev. P. No. 02 of 2020
Decided On : 03-08-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conclusion and orders of the court (Para 14) |
JUDGMENT
Meenakshi Madan Rai, J. - The Court of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (hereinafter, 'CJM'), East and North Sikkim, at Gangtok, vide its impugned Order dated 09-10-2019, in Prosecution Report Case No.01/2017, discharged the Respondent/Accused, Dasang Bhutia, (hereinafter, 'Respondent') of the offences under Section 135(1)(a) and (b) of the CUSTOMS ACT , 1962 (for short, ' CUSTOMS ACT ') on consideration of the facts, provisions of law and the evidence brought forth, concluding that no case was made out against the Respondent to warrant his conviction for the offences under the aforementioned provisions of the CUSTOMS ACT . Aggrieved thereof, the Petitioner/Complainant (hereinafter 'Petitioner') is before this Court urging that the Learned Trial Court erred in its conclusion and erroneously discharged the Respondent.
2(i). To appreciate the matter in its correct perspective it is essential to briefly lay down the facts of the case. The Petitioner lodged a Complaint before the Court of Learned CJM in Prosecution Report Case No.01/2017 under Section 135(1) (a) and (b) and Section 137(1) of the CUSTOMS ACT , stating that the Petitioner, (Superintendent of Customs, Sherathang Land Customs Station, Gangtok under Siliguri Commissionerate), on receipt of information from the Sikkim Police on 17-11-2015, accompanied by Customs Officers of Gangtok Customs and two witnesses went to the Sadar Police Station, Gangtok at about 14.00 hours. At the Police Station (P.S.) they learned that as per GD Entry No.34, dated 16-11-2015, the team of Police Personnel posted at Sherathang P.S. with the assistance of the Indo Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) stationed at Nathula, acting on a tip off, conducted a body search of traders and a search of vehicles inbound from Rinchenghang, Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR), China to India at Nathula Gate. On a search of the 'Toyota Fortuner', vehicle bearing registration No.SK-01-PA-6314 and its owner-cum-driver, the Respondent, one piece of yellow metal believed to be gold, weighing approximately one kilogram in weight was found concealed in the inner pocket of the right side of his trousers and duly recovered. The Respondent failed to furnish any valid documents to establish legitimate possession of the article which appeared to be smuggled from TAR, China and was later found to be valued at Rs.51,00,000/- (Rupees fifty one lakhs) only. At about 17.00 hours on 16-11-2015, the Station House Officer (SHO), Sherathang P.S., Police Inspector (PI) Novin Rai seized the said gold bar bearing the marking AS30361 'VALCAMBI SUISSE 1 KILO FINE GOLD, 999.9' and the vehicle of the Respondent vide seizure memo dated 16-11-2015, under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C, in the presence of witnesses Sub Inspector (SI) Roshan Gurung of the Special Branch and Woman Constable (WCT) Bindhya Rai, Sikkim Police. The Respondent was then detained and brought to the Sadar P.S., Gangtok. On the same day in a related incident a truck driven by one Ms. Nim Lhamu Sherpa was intercepted and five pieces of gold bar weighing five kilograms were found concealed under the driver's seat. As both the cases involved illegal import of gold, the SHO, Sherathang P.S. informed the Customs Officials and made over to them the Respondent, all the gold bars recovered and the seized Toyota Fortuner by preparing a 'Handing-Taking' Memo dated 17-11-2015 at 14.40 hours, at the Sadar P.S., in the presence of the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Gangtok and Police Officers. The gold seized from the Respondent was tested by two independent licensed jewelers of Gangtok who concluded that the yellow metal bar was a 24 carat Gold bar. The Respondent on preliminary enquiry admitted that he had brought the gold from Rinchenghang, TAR, which was accordingly seized and sealed by the SHO, Sherathang P.S. As the gold was clandestinely smuggled into India it was thus liable for confiscation under Section 111 of t
Ajoy Kumar Ghose vs. State of Jharkhand and Another (2009) 14 SCC 115
D.N. Anerao vs. Maheshkumar Kantilal Soni and Others (1985) 2 GLR 1370
Mauvin Godinho vs. State of Goa (2018) 3 SCC 358
R.S. Nayak vs. A. R. Antulay and Another (1986) 2 SCC 716
Radha vs. Raju 2003(3) KLT 1046
State of Maharashtra vs. Natwarlal Damodardas Soni (1980) 4 SCC 669
AI
A prima facie case for smuggling exists if the evidence presented could sustain a conviction; trial courts must assess this before discharging an accused.
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.
Quasi-judicial proceedings require strict adherence to principles of natural justice, including the right to cross-examine witnesses, which was violated in this case, rendering the confiscation order....
The burden of proof in smuggling cases under Section 123 of the Customs Act shifts only upon reasonable belief of smuggled nature; inadequate evidence substantiates the legality of goods.
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 held that the offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act is bailable when the value of the goods is below Rs. 1 Crore and classified as restricted rather than prohibited.
Possession of smuggled goods under the Customs Act confirms liability for prosecution without proper documentation; the accused must prove otherwise.
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.