Controlled prosecutorial discretion under customs law upheld; conviction sustained, but custodial sentence reduced in the facts.

A statutory discretion vested in customs officers to decide whether to prosecute does not violate Article 14 when it is controlled by the Act's object, scheme, and policy and must be exercised reasonably and bona fide; SC upheld Section 187A as valid. The conviction was sustained because no basis was found to disturb the finding of guilt, but the custodial sentence was reduced as excessive in the facts, while the fine and confiscation were left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 187A of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, which authorised specified customs officers to decide whether to lodge a complaint for offences punishable under Section 167(81), was unconstitutional as violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India; (ii) whether the conviction was sustainable and, if so, whether the sentence required interference.

Issue (i): Whether Section 187A of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, which authorised specified customs officers to decide whether to lodge a complaint for offences punishable under Section 167(81), was unconstitutional as violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The Court held that the power under Section 187A could not be viewed in isolation. The Act's preamble, its scheme, and the distinction between confiscatory and penal consequences under Sections 167(8) and 167(81) supplied the governing policy. The authorised customs officers were responsible officers bound to act reasonably, bona fide, and with regard to the nature of the contravention and the available evidence. Discretion in the choice to prosecute was therefore treated as guided by the object and purpose of the enactment and not as arbitrary or discriminatory.

Conclusion: The challenge under Article 14 failed and Section 187A was upheld as valid.

Issue (ii): Whether the conviction was sustainable and, if so, whether the sentence required interference.

Analysis: The Court found no reason to disturb the finding of guilt. At the same time, the circumstances of the case justified modification of the punishment. The sentence of imprisonment was considered excessive in the facts, while the fine and confiscation were left undisturbed.

Conclusion: The conviction was maintained, but the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the limited extent of reducing the custodial sentence, while the constitutional challenge and the conviction otherwise remained intact.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory discretion to decide whether a customs offence should be prosecuted does not offend Article 14 when the discretion is controlled by the object, purpose, and scheme of the enactment and is required to be exercised reasonably and bona fide.

---