1972 (2) TMI 109 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court affirms conviction and sentences under Sea Customs and Foreign Exchange laws.

Harbansingh Sardar Lenasingh And Ors. Versus The State Of Maharashtra And Ors.

Harbansingh Sardar Lenasingh And Ors. Versus The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. - AIR 1972 SC 1224, (1972) 3 SCC 775, Issues Involved:1. Conviction under Section 135 of the Sea Customs Act, 1962.2. Conviction under Section 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947.3. Admissibility and reliability of confessional statements.4. Alleged violation of Section 104 of the Customs Act.5. Corroboration of confessional statements.Detailed Analysis:1. Conviction under Section 135 of the Sea Customs Act, 1962:The appellants were convicted under Section 135 of the Sea Customs Act, 1962, for importing contraband goods. The prosecution presented evidence that on March 21, 1965, customs officials intercepted a car near Bassein creek. The car contained four gunny bundles of gold chips, which were identified as foreign-origin gold based on their markings. The appellant admitted to being in the car and acknowledged the presence of the gold when questioned by the customs officials.2. Conviction under Section 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947:The appellants were also convicted under Section 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. The prosecution demonstrated that the gold chips were of foreign origin and were not manufactured in India. The appellant's statement revealed that he had arranged to bring the gold from Bassein side for a profit, thus violating the foreign exchange regulations.3. Admissibility and Reliability of Confessional Statements:The confessional statements of the accused, recorded by Senior Superintendent of Customs, James Robb, were admitted as evidence. The court referenced the decision in Ramesh Chandra Mehta v. State of West Bengal, which established that statements recorded by customs officers are admissible and not barred by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act or Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The appellant's contention that parts of his statement were introduced by customs officers was dismissed as an afterthought, given that no such suggestion was made during the cross-examination of Robb.4. Alleged Violation of Section 104 of the Customs Act:One of the contentions raised was the alleged violation of Section 104 of the Customs Act, which mandates that the accused should be produced before a magistrate without unnecessary delay. This contention was repelled by the High Court, and the Supreme Court did not find any merit in it to overturn the conviction.5. Corroboration of Confessional Statements:The appellant argued that the confessional statements lacked sufficient corroboration. However, the court found that the circumstances surrounding the interception of the car and the recovery of the gold corroborated the confessional statements. The appellant's presence in the car, the wet mud on the gunny bags, and the odd hour of the car's movement all pointed to the appellant's guilt. The court held that these incriminating circumstances, along with the confessional statement, justified the conviction.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 135 of the Sea Customs Act, 1962, and Section 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. The court found no reason to interfere with the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years under the former count and one year under the latter count, to run concurrently. The appeal was dismissed.