1990 (4) TMI 63 - HC - Customs

High Court overturns acquittal, deems accused's statement admissible. Form 37 not mandatory for baggage declaration.

The High Court allowed the State's appeal, setting aside the acquittal order by the Additional Sessions Judge. The Court found the accused's statement ... Evidence - Customs - Statement made by accused a truthful one Issues Involved:1. Legality of the acquittal order by the Additional Sessions Judge.2. Admissibility and voluntariness of the accused's statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act.3. Mandatory nature of Form No. 37 for baggage declaration.4. Sufficiency of evidence to establish the accused's guilt.5. Appropriateness of the sentence imposed by the Trial Court.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Acquittal Order by the Additional Sessions Judge:The State contended that the Additional Sessions Judge erred in acquitting the accused by not properly considering the evidence and the statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The High Court found that the Additional Sessions Judge's decision to acquit was based on an incorrect interpretation of the requirement for Form No. 37, which led to the erroneous conclusion that the accused had no opportunity to declare the articles.2. Admissibility and Voluntariness of the Accused's Statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act:The accused's statement under Section 108, which was retracted later, was a point of contention. The High Court noted that even a retracted statement could be used against the accused if corroborated by other evidence. The Court found the statement to be voluntary and truthful, contradicting the Additional Sessions Judge's view that the statement was not voluntary due to the circumstances of its recording.3. Mandatory Nature of Form No. 37 for Baggage Declaration:The Additional Sessions Judge held that Form No. 37 was mandatory, and its non-issuance invalidated the prosecution's case. The High Court, however, concluded that Form No. 37 was not a mandatory requirement under the Customs Act or its regulations but rather a guideline. The Court emphasized that oral declarations were sufficient and that the failure to provide Form No. 37 did not invalidate the customs officers' actions or the evidence collected.4. Sufficiency of Evidence to Establish the Accused's Guilt:The High Court found sufficient evidence to establish the accused's guilt. The accused was repeatedly asked to declare any dutiable items but failed to do so. The presence of undeclared dutiable goods, including jewelry and wristwatches, was corroborated by the testimony of the panch witness, Mr. Rego, and the customs officers. The Court held that the accused's failure to declare these items constituted an offense under Sections 135(l)(a)(ii) and 135(1)(b)(ii) of the Customs Act and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act.5. Appropriateness of the Sentence Imposed by the Trial Court:The High Court upheld the sentence imposed by the Trial Court, which included a fine of Rs. 40,000/- on each count under the Customs Act and Rs. 2,000/- under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act. The Court noted that the Trial Court had been lenient by not imposing a harsher substantive sentence and found no reason to reduce the fines.Conclusion:The High Court allowed the State's appeal, setting aside the order of acquittal and restoring the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. The respondent was given three months to pay the fine.