Possession of smuggled goods under the Customs Act confirms liability for prosecution without proper documentation; the accused must prove otherwise.

1. This revision is directed against the judgment of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Margao upholding the conviction of the petitioner under S.135 (b) r/w S.135 (ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 (to be hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for being in possession of goods which he knew or had reason to believe was liable to confiscation under S.111 of the aforesaid Act and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to six months of imprisonment.

2. On 12-5-71 a party of Customs Officers, acting on information received searched the godown No. 97 at Pajifond, Margao belonging to and in the occupation of the accused on the strength of a search warrant No. 23 dated 12-5-71 issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Goa in presence of two independent panch witnesses and the accused and found foreign goods viz. textiles made of mainly synthetic fabrics, transistor radios, ear phones and battery cells. In the complaint filed on 15th November, 1971 by the Assistant Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Goa (P. W. 1), it is alleged that customs duty is chargeable on the goods under seizure (annexure 'B' (panchanama)) and that they are smuggled goods on which customs duty had not been paid and they were imported into India under cover of no valid licence granted by an appropriate Import Control Authority. The goods under seizure fall in the category of Notified Goods and their possession / acquisition and the place of storage is required to be notified to the Customs in terms of S.11C of the Act. It is further stated therein that the goods under seizure are liable to confiscation under S.111 of the Act and they are covered by S.123 of the Act. The goods under seizure are of foreign origin inasmuch as they bore foreign markings. In the absence of any document in support of their import, acquisition, possession, they appear to be smuggled goods and they were seized in the reasonable belief that they were liable to confiscation under the provisions of the Act being smuggled goods. It was submitted that the accused having been concerned in clandestine import of the goods under seizure totally valued at Rs. 28,150.59 (CIF), and Rs. 74,549.68 (MV) and in fraudulent evasion of duty chargeable thereon and also being found in possession of the goods which he knew or had reasons to believe was liable to confiscation under S.111 of the Act committed offence punishable under S.135 (a) and (b) of the Act.

3. The petitioner pleaded not guilty. In his statement under S.313 Cr. P. C., the petitioner though admitted that all the goods were seized from the godown in his occupation, he took the plea that somebody had kept them there.

4. The first ground taken before me is that it cannot be said that the accused was in conscious possession of the goods in question. The finding of the learned trial Court endorsed by the Appellate Court is that the said smuggled articles were possessed by the accused as they were found in his godown. It is not in dispute that the godown in which the goods were found admittedly belongs to the petitioner and this he has admitted in his statement under S.313. When he was asked then to explain how and why those goods came to be kept in his godown, he said that somebody had kept them there. He however did not name any person in particular, though he had named P. W. 4 as the person who had kept those goods during investigation. The prosecution took the pains to examine that witness i. e. P. W. 4 Manohar Virdekar, to expose the falsity in the story set up by the petitioner. It appears from a perusal of his evidence that the witness was brought to the presence of the accused