Revision petition dismissed, upholding convictions & sentences. First petitioner to surrender, serve sentence, pay fine. upheld

The revision petition was dismissed, upholding the convictions and sentences awarded by the lower courts. The first petitioner was directed to surrender to his bail, undergo imprisonment, and pay the fine. The sentences of fine awarded to the other petitioners were to be enforced if not already paid.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Legality of the conviction under Section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.
2. Mens rea requirement for the offence under Section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act.
3. Authority of the complainant to file the complaint.
4. Compliance with the procedural requirements under Section 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.
5. Sufficiency and admissibility of evidence.
6. Justification for the composite sentence awarded.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Conviction under Section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act:
The learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction of the petitioners under Section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, read with Section 23(1), based on the proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The petitioners were found guilty of bringing gold into India without the necessary permit from the Reserve Bank of India, which was sufficient to make them liable under the said charge. The learned Sessions Judge held that mens rea was not a necessary element for this offence, and the proof of the fact that the petitioners had brought gold into India without the necessary permit was sufficient for conviction.

2. Mens rea Requirement for the Offence under Section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act:
The learned Sessions Judge acquitted the petitioners of the charge under Section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act, on the ground that the prosecution had failed to establish mens rea or knowledge. The absence of a clear finding on mens rea meant that the petitioners could not be held liable under this section. The learned Sessions Judge's conclusion that mens rea was necessary for this offence was based on the evidence on record.

3. Authority of the Complainant to File the Complaint:
The petitioners contended that P.W. 1 Sri Parameshwara, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Customs Preventive, was not authorized to file the complaint as required by Section 23(3)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. However, the court found that a notification dated 12-1-1952 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, empowered the Collector and Assistant Collectors of Customs to file such complaints. This notification continued to be in force even after the amendment of the Act by Act 39 of 1957. Therefore, P.W. 1 Sri Parameshwara was competent to lodge the complaint.

4. Compliance with Procedural Requirements under Section 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act:
The petitioners argued that the complaint was invalid as they were not given an opportunity to show cause whether they had a permit, as required by the proviso to Section 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. The court found this contention to be without merit, as the petitioners were given an opportunity to show cause, and they uniformly stated that they had no permits. The evidence of P.W. 1 and the replies given by the petitioners (Exhibits P-3 to P-11) confirmed compliance with this procedural requirement.

5. Sufficiency and Admissibility of Evidence:
The petitioners contended that there was no reliable and sufficient evidence to prove that they intentionally brought the gold into India. The court held that the evidence on record, including the statements made by the petitioners before the Customs Authorities (Exhibits P-18 to P-26), was sufficient to establish their guilt. The court disagreed with the learned Sessions Judge's view that these statements were inadmissible as they were made before officers considered to be police officers. The court accepted the consistent view of the Madras and Andhra Pradesh High Courts that Customs Authorities are not police officers, and therefore, the statements were admissible in evidence.

6. Justification for the Composite Sentence Awarded:
The petitioners argued that the composite sentence awarded by the learned trial judge should have been reduced proportionately after their acquittal under Section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act. The court found no substance in this contention, holding that the sentences awarded were not severe and did not call for any interference.

Conclusion:
The revision petition was dismissed, and the convictions and sentences awarded by the lower courts were upheld. The first petitioner was directed to surrender to his bail and undergo the imprisonment and pay the fine, while the sentences of fine awarded to the other petitioners were to be enforced if not already paid.

---