Secondary evidence of foreign public documents and valid customs sanction upheld; conviction left undisturbed in revision.

Secondary evidence of official foreign public documents is admissible where the originals are identified and the copies or photographs are shown to have been taken from those originals, so the Hong Kong seizure documents could be received in evidence. Prosecution sanction under the Customs Act was upheld because it was proved through the issuing Customs officer and was not effectively challenged, making it valid and competent. On the evidence of shipment, concealment of opium in bags, and absence of any reasonable likelihood of tampering, the concurrent findings were not disturbed in revision, and the conviction and sentence remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the photographs and copies of the Hong Kong seizure documents were admissible in evidence as secondary evidence of public documents; (ii) whether the sanction for prosecution under the Customs Act was valid and competent; and (iii) whether the conviction and sentence called for interference in revision.

Issue (i): Whether the photographs and copies of the Hong Kong seizure documents were admissible in evidence as secondary evidence of public documents.

Analysis: The seizure documents produced from Hong Kong were treated as official records of a foreign public authority. The evidence showed that the photographs were taken from the originals and that the original documents had been identified as such. In that setting, the Court applied the principles governing secondary evidence and proof of public documents, holding that the material could be received in evidence.

Conclusion: The photographs and copies were admissible in evidence.

Issue (ii): Whether the sanction for prosecution under the Customs Act was valid and competent.

Analysis: The sanction was proved through the evidence of the Customs officer who issued it, and its genuineness was not effectively challenged. On that evidence, the Court found no defect in the grant of sanction.

Conclusion: The sanction for prosecution was valid and proper.

Issue (iii): Whether the conviction and sentence called for interference in revision.

Analysis: The prosecution evidence established the shipment of the consignment, the concealment of opium in the bags, and the absence of any reasonable likelihood of tampering during transit. The Court accepted the concurrent findings of the courts below and found no ground to disturb them.

Conclusion: No interference was warranted with the conviction or sentence.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed, and the convictions and sentences were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Secondary evidence of official foreign documents is admissible where the originals are identified and proved, and a conviction will not be interfered with in revision when the concurrent findings are supported by reliable evidence and the prosecution sanction is duly proved.

---