1982 (2) TMI 73 - HC - Customs

Watch dealer convicted for possessing smuggled watches, faces fine or imprisonment

The accused, a watch dealer, was prosecuted under Sec. 135 of the Customs Act 1962 for possessing smuggled watches. The accused failed to prove the ... Burden of proof lies on the person from whom smuggled goods were recovered Issues:1. Prosecution under Sec. 135 of the Customs Act 1962 for possession of smuggled watches.2. Reliability of statement Ex. P-9 given by the accused.3. Acquittal by the Special Judge for Economic Offences and the correctness of the decision.4. Burden of proof in cases of seized smuggled goods under Sec. 123 of the Act.5. Applicability of Sec. 123 in criminal cases and burden of proof on the prosecution.6. Determination of punishment for the offence.Analysis:1. The case involves the prosecution of a watch dealer under Sec. 135 of the Customs Act 1962 for possession of smuggled watches. The accused was found with foreign-origin watches and failed to prove their legality. The Customs authorities confiscated the watches and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,500.2. The reliability of the statement Ex. P-9 given by the accused was questioned. The court deemed it unsafe to rely on the statement as it was unclear when it was obtained and under what circumstances. The accused claimed the statement was made under duress and without admitting any offence.3. The Special Judge for Economic Offences acquitted the accused based on the possibility that Indian-made watches could be passed off as foreign-made. The decision to acquit was challenged on the grounds of the evidence presented and the interpretation of the law.4. The burden of proof in cases of seized smuggled goods under Sec. 123 of the Act was a crucial issue. The Customs authorities argued that the burden to prove the watches were not smuggled goods lay on the accused. The court analyzed the evidence and the provisions of the Act to determine the responsibility of proving the legality of the seized goods.5. The applicability of Sec. 123 in criminal cases and the burden of proof on the prosecution were debated. The defense argued that the burden was on the prosecution to prove the watches were smuggled, while the Customs authorities contended that the accused failed to demonstrate the legality of the watches, leading to his guilt under Sec. 135.6. The court determined the punishment for the offence, considering the value of the seized watches at Rs. 5,800. The accused was convicted under Sec. 135 of the Act and ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 5,800, with a default punishment of two years of rigorous imprisonment in case of non-payment. The appeal lodged by the Customs authorities was allowed, upholding the conviction and the imposed penalty.