1990 (12) TMI 79 - HC - Customs

Conviction challenged under IPC and Customs Act, one reduced sentence, another acquitted. Appeal abated post demise.

MARCELIN SABESTAIN CARVELLO Versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Accused Nos. 17 and 20 challenged their conviction and sentence under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135(b)(i) of the Customs Act. The ... Evidence - Prosecution Issues: Conviction and sentence under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962; Voluntariness of Section 108 Customs Act statements; Culpability of accused Nos. 17 and 20 based on their statements.In this case, the appellants, accused Nos. 5, 17, and 20, challenged their conviction and sentence under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Customs Authorities apprehended the accused for their involvement in smuggling activities, where they allegedly allowed their godown to be used for storing contraband. The main evidence against the appellants was the Section 108 Customs Act statements they made, which they later retracted, claiming coercion by the authorities. The trial court found the statements voluntary and convicted the accused. Accused No. 5's appeal abated due to his demise after availing bail. Accused Nos. 17 and 20 challenged the voluntariness of their statements and their culpability based on the same.The High Court analyzed the statements made by accused Nos. 17 and 20 under Section 108 of the Customs Act. Accused No. 17 admitted to allowing contraband to be stored in the family godown on one occasion, despite advice against it. The court held that this act did not establish his involvement in a criminal conspiracy but rendered him guilty under Section 135(b)(i) of the Customs Act. Considering his age and circumstances, the court substituted his sentence with a fine of Rs. 5,000, with a provision for two years of imprisonment if the fine was not paid within six weeks.Regarding accused No. 20, the court found his statement lacked incriminating evidence. Accused No. 20 mentioned incidents involving accused No. 17 and others but did not directly implicate himself in any criminal activity. The court concluded that the trial court's decision to convict and sentence accused No. 20 could not be sustained, and thus set aside the order entirely.In the final order, the High Court restricted the conviction of accused No. 17 to the offense under Section 135(b)(i) of the Customs Act, imposing a fine of Rs. 5,000 with a provision for two years of imprisonment if the fine remained unpaid. The conviction and sentence against accused No. 20 were entirely set aside, and any fine paid by him was to be refunded. The appeal related to accused No. 5 was abated due to his passing.