1976 (3) TMI 53 - SC - Customs

High Court affirms conviction under Customs Act, reduces sentence to 1 year

VEERA IBRAHIM Versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

VEERA IBRAHIM Versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1590 (SC), 1976 AIR 1167, 1976 (3) SCR 672, 1976 (2) SCC 302 Issues Involved:1. Whether Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 is ultra vires the provisions of Clause (3) of Article 20 of the Constitution.2. Whether the appellant's statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 was hit by Clause (3) of Article 20 of the Constitution.3. Whether the appellant's statement was hit by Section 24 of the Evidence Act.4. Whether the incriminating facts admitted in the appellant's statement, along with other evidence, were sufficient to establish an offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Ultra Vires of Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962:The main question for consideration was whether Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 is ultra vires the provisions of Clause (3) of Article 20 of the Constitution. However, this issue was not pressed by the appellant's counsel before the Supreme Court.2. Applicability of Clause (3) of Article 20 of the Constitution:The appellant contended that his statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act was hit by Clause (3) of Article 20 because he was 'accused of an offence' under Section 124 of the Bombay Police Act at the time of making the statement, and it was obtained under compulsion. The Court analyzed Clause (3) of Article 20, which provides that 'No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.' It was noted that to claim the benefit of this clause, it must be shown that the person was 'accused of any offence' and made the statement under compulsion. The Court referred to previous decisions, including R.C. Mehta v. State of West Bengal, which clarified that a person is considered 'accused of an offence' only when a formal accusation has been levelled. The Court concluded that when the appellant's statement was recorded by the Customs Officer, he was not formally 'accused of any offence' under the Customs Act. The formal accusation occurred only when the complaint was filed by the Assistant Collector of Customs. Therefore, the statement was not hit by Clause (3) of Article 20.3. Applicability of Section 24 of the Evidence Act:The appellant argued that his statement was obtained under compulsion of law and was hit by Section 24 of the Evidence Act. To attract the prohibition under Section 24, it must be shown that the statement is a confession, made by an accused person to a person in authority, and obtained by inducement, threat, or promise. The Court found that the statement was not a 'confession' as it contained exculpatory matter and did not admit all the facts constituting the offence. Additionally, there was no evidence that the Customs Officer had offered any inducement or held out any threat or promise to the appellant. The Court also noted that the compulsion to state the truth under Section 108 of the Customs Act emanates from law, not from a person in authority. Therefore, the statement was not barred under Section 24 and was admissible as an admission of incriminating facts.4. Sufficiency of Evidence to Establish Offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act:The appellant contended that the incriminating facts admitted in his statement, along with other evidence, were insufficient to establish an offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act. The Court acknowledged that the statutory presumption under Section 123 of the Customs Act could not be invoked due to the absence of the requisite notification. However, the Court found that the circumstances established unerringly raised an inference regarding all the factual ingredients of an offence under Section 135(b) read with Section 135(ii) of the Customs Act. The appellant's statement, corroborated by other evidence, indicated that the packages containing contraband goods were surreptitiously loaded in the truck, and the appellant was knowingly concerned in a fraudulent attempt at evasion of duty. Therefore, the evidence was sufficient to establish the offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act.Conclusion:The appeal was dismissed, and the High Court's judgment was upheld, maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Section 135(a) of the Customs Act with a reduced sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment.