Appeal
Appeal against the criminal revision preferred by the accused dismissed by the High Court
2. These two appeals arise from common judgment dated 21st December, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad in Criminal Revision Application No. 381, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390 of 2005 whereby, the revisions preferred by the original accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 were dismissed and their conviction for offence punishable under section 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 was affirmed.
Brief Facts
Based on secret intelligence smuggled foreign watches were recovered
4. The case of the prosecution in brief is that secret intelligence was received by the Customs officers at Mandvi indicating that prohibited smuggled foreign wrist watches had been concealed near a fisherman’s jetty. Specifically, it was reported that two jute sacks containing smuggled wrist watches of foreign brands such as Seiko, Citizen, and Ricoh were concealed in two pits located on a newly laid road, opposite to the Mandvi Gram Panchayat Rest House. Acting on this intelligence report, on 30th April, 1985 at about 9:00 p.m., Customs officers from Mandvi, accompanied by two independent panch witnesses, proceeded to the site and conducted a search. During excavation of the pits, two jute sacks were recovered. One sack contained ten packets, while the other contained seventeen packets. Based on their packaging, quantity, and nature, the Customs officers formed a reasonable belief that the contents were smuggled foreign wrist watches. The seized sacks were then shifted to the Customs House, Mandvi, where, in the presence of panch witnesses, they were opened and examined. Upon close inspection, a total of 777 foreign-made wrist watches and 879 wrist watch straps were found, with an estimated value of Rs.2,22,190/-. A seizure panchnama was prepared on 1st May 1985, and the goods were confiscated under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, on the reasonable belief that they had been illegally imported into India. Further investigation revealed that the seized goods had been smuggled into India during the first week of February, 1985 aboard the ship Safina-Tul-Firdaus H.M.V. 643. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were identified as the owners of the ship, while accused No. 3 was its captain. Other accused persons were alleged to have actively participated in concealing, storing, transporting, selling, or facilitating the disposal of the smuggled goods. Some of the accused were found to have kept the smuggled watches in their custody, while others sold portions of the goods or retained sale proceeds. Cash amounts derived from such illegal sales were also seized from some of the accused persons.
Final report filed charges were framed under Customs Act
5. The prosecution alleged that all accused knowingly dealt with smuggled foreign goods, despite being aware that such goods were liable to confiscation under law. They intentionally concealed, transported, sold, or otherwise handled the smuggled watches, thereby committing the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. After obtaining sanction from the Collector of Customs, Ahmedabad, a criminal complaint was filed on 19th January, 1987 against 21 accused persons for the above offence. The trial Court took cognizance and framed charges against the accused persons for offence punishable under Section 135 (1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. They denied the charges and were tried.
6. Accused Nos. 4, 8, 18 and 20 were not available to be tried and hence their trial was separated.
Some of the accused were acquitted and others convicted by CJM
7. Accused Nos. 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19 and A21 were acquitted, whereas, accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 were convicted and held guilty by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhuj-Kachchh vide judgment dated 26th March, 2003 passed in Criminal Case No. 566 of 87. Each convicted accused was sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.2,000/- each, with default stipulation of eight months rigorous imprisonment. The period spent by the accused in custody was ordered to be set off.
ADJ dismissed the appeal
8. The convicted accused preferred separate appeals being Criminal Appeal Nos. 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28 and 29 of 2003 against the judgment of trial Court which came to be dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhuj vide judgment dated 21st May, 2005, affirming the judgment and order of sentence dated 26th March, 2003 passed by the trial Court.
Criminal revisions preferred by the appellants also rejected and hence this appeal
9. The appellants preferred separate revisions against the dismissal of their criminal appeals which have been rejected by the High Court vide common judgment dated 21st December, 2010, which is the subject matter of challenge in these appeals by special leave.
Analysis
Findings and Conclusion
19. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at the bar and have perused the material placed on record.
The following observations of Hon’ble High Court is agreed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in this judgment
Statements recorded under Customs Act are admissible in evidence and do not attract the bar contained under sections 24, 30 or 34 IEA
20. At the outset, it would be apposite to note that the contention that the conviction of the appellants could not be founded solely upon the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, was also urged before the High Court in revision. The High Court, upon a detailed examination of the statutory framework and the judicial precedents governing the admissibility and evidentiary value of such statements, rejected the said contention. It was observed that statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 by duly authorized Customs Officers are admissible in evidence and do not attract the bar contained in Sections 24, 30, or 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provided they are made voluntarily.
Statements recorded under section 108 Customs Act found to be voluntary they are substantive pieces of evidence
21. Placing reliance on judgment of this Court in K.I. Pavunny v. Assistant Collector (HQ), Central Excise Collectorate, Cochin, the High Court held that the object of Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 is to empower Customs authorities to collect relevant information and evidence relating to contraventions of the Act, and that such statements, if found to be voluntary, are substantive pieces of evidence capable of being relied upon in support of the prosecution case.
Appellants failed to establish to demonstrate that the statements under section 108 Customs Act were obtained under coercion or inducement or threat
22. The High Court further noted that the appellants had failed to establish any material to demonstrate that the statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 were obtained under coercion, inducement, or threat, and in the absence of such proof, the statements could not be discarded. The High Court negated the contention that the conviction was based solely on the statements recorded under Section 108, observing that such statements had led to further discovery of incriminating material, including contraband articles and money, duly documented through panchnamas and corroborated by the testimony of Customs Officers. It was held that such discoveries and recoveries constituted independent and relevant evidence within the meaning of Sections 6, 10, and 11 of the Evidence Act, thereby lending corroborative support to the statements made under Section 108. Consequently, it was held that the conviction of appellants was not based merely on confessional statements but in addition thereto, the prosecution provided tangible corroborative evidence. Therefore, the judgment of conviction did not suffer from perversity or legal infirmity.
23. Having considered the matter in its entirety, we find ourselves in agreement with the observations made by the High Court. The findings of guilt recorded by the trial Court, which stand concurrently affirmed by the appellate Court as well as the High Court do not suffer from any perversity, illegality, or manifest error warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
Question remaining is on Quantum of sentence
24. Thus, the only question which remains for consideration at this stage pertains to the quantum of the sentence imposed, particularly in light of the surrounding circumstances, the custodial period already undergone by the appellants, and the significant lapse of time since the date of the recovery.
25. In this regard, it is significant to note that Shri Thakare, learned A.S.G. appearing for respondents was not in a position to dispute the fact that the recovery relates to the year 1985, and that the offending consignment of watches was recovered lying in an abandoned condition. The conviction of the appellants seems to be primarily based on confessional statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. Conscious possession of the smuggled goods is not attributed to the appellants.
26. It is further not in dispute that several co accused persons were acquitted by the trial Court. Some of the appellants before us are reported to have passed away during the pendency of the present appeals. The surviving appellants are now of advanced age and have undergone a substantial period of incarceration, reportedly around one year, which is more than the statutory minimum sentence of six months contemplated under the proviso to Section 135 (1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 as it then existed.
Conclusion
Sentence reduced to the term already undergone by the appellants
27. In this backdrop, considering the totality of circumstances, including the fact that the incident is nearly four decades old, the period of incarceration already undergone by the appellants, the prolonged pendency of proceedings, and the advanced age of the surviving appellants, we are of the considered view that directing the appellants to undergo any further incarceration at this point of time would be unduly harsh and would not subserve the ends of justice. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, ends of justice would be served by reducing the sentence to the term already undergone by the appellants.
28. Accordingly, while affirming the judgment of conviction dated 26th March, 2003 passed by the trial Court, we deem it appropriate to reduce the sentence awarded to the appellants to the period already undergone by them.
29. Since, the appellants are on bail, they need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged.
Resources
Judgments were involved or cited
- Amad Noormamad Bakali vs. The State of Gujarat & Ors., 2026 INSC 180.
- K.I. Pavunny v. Assistant Collector (HQ), Central Excise Collectorate, Cochin, (1997) 3 SCC 721.
Acts and Sections
Customs Act, 1962
- Section 108: Used for recording statements and confessions by authorized Customs Officers during the inquiry.
- Section 111: Defines goods that are liable to confiscation.
- Section 123: Applies to specific goods (such as the seized watches) where the burden of proof may shift.
- Section 135: Relates to the evasion of duty or prohibitions.
- Section 135(1)(b)(i): Specifically concerning the possession, concealment, or dealing of smuggled goods with a market price exceeding one lakh rupees.
Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860
- Section 34: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
- Section 302: Punishment for murder (referenced regarding an FIR against Customs officials).
- Section 323: Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
- Section 330: Voluntarily causing hurt to extort confession.
Indian Evidence Act, 1872
- Section 6: Relevancy of facts forming part of the same transaction.
- Section 10: Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design.
- Section 11: When facts not otherwise relevant become relevant.
- Section 24: Confession caused by inducement, threat, or promise.
- Section 30: Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and others jointly under trial.
- Section 34: Relevancy of entries in books of account.
Constitution of India
- Article 136: Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court.
Party
Amad Noormamad Bakali versus The State of Gujarat & Ors - Criminal Appeal Nos. 1000 of 2012 and 1232-1237 of 2012 - 2026 INSC 180 - February 23, 2026 - Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta.
