TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1116
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Customs Act, 1962 was affirmed. 3. The details of revisions preferred by the original accused persons are noted hereinbelow: Revision Preferred by Criminal Revision Application No. 381 Amad Noormamad Bakali (accused No. 2) Criminal Revision Application No. 385 Aamad Alimamad Paleja (accused No. 1) Criminal Revision Application No. 386 Anwarali Abdula Sama (accused No. 5) Criminal Revision Application No. 387 Chamanlal Kakubhai Thakkar (accused No. 7) Criminal Revision Application No. 388 Ismail Alimamad Paleja (accused No. 3) Criminal Revision Application No. 389 Ismail Ibrahim Mandhara (accused No. 11) Criminal Revision Application No. 390 Abdul Jumma Mandhara (accused No. 6) Brief Facts:- 4. The case of the prosecution in brief is that secret intelligence was received by the Customs officers at Mandvi indicating that prohibited smuggled foreign wrist watches had been concealed near a fisherman's jetty. Specifically, it was reported that two jute sacks containing smuggled wrist watches of foreign brands such as Seiko, Citizen, and Ricoh were concealed in two pits located on a newly laid road, opposite to the Mandvi Gram Panc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Nos. 4, 8, 18 and 20 were not available to be tried and hence their trial was separated. 7. Accused Nos. 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19 and A21 were acquitted, whereas, accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 were convicted and held guilty by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhuj-Kachchh ["trial Court".] vide judgment dated 26th March, 2003 passed in Criminal Case No. 566 of 87. Each convicted accused was sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, with default stipulation of eight months rigorous imprisonment. The period spent by the accused in custody was ordered to be set off. 8. The convicted accused preferred separate appeals being Criminal Appeal Nos. 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28 and 29 of 2003 against the judgment of trial Court which came to be dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhuj ["appellate Court".] vide judgment dated 21st May, 2005, affirming the judgment and order of sentence dated 26th March, 2003 passed by the trial Court. 9. The appellants preferred separate revisions [Referred to in para 3.] against the dismissal of their criminal appeals which have been rejected by the High Court vide common judgment dated 21st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thorities, was subjected to severe custodial torture during the course of investigation and subsequently succumbed to the injuries inflicted upon him. In this regard, an FIR was registered against the concerned Customs officials for offences punishable under Sections 330, 302, 323, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 15. Shri Dave urged that all the appellants before this Court have already remained in custody for a considerable period nearing one year during the pendency of the trial, appeal, and revision before the High Court, and were subsequently enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 17th February, 2011. 16. He urged that though Section 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 as it then stood, carried a maximum punishment of five years, however, at the same time, the proviso to the aforesaid provision gives discretion to the Court to award minimum six months imprisonment for reasons to be recorded. Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 (as it then stood) is extracted hereinbelow:- "135. Evasion of duty or prohibitions- 1) Without prejudice to any action that may be taken under this Act, if any person- (a) is in relation to any goods in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....contained in Sections 24, 30, or 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provided they are made voluntarily. 21. Placing reliance on judgment of this Court in K.I. Pavunny v. Assistant Collector (HQ), Central Excise Collectorate, Cochin (1997) 3 SCC 721, the High Court held that the object of Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 is to empower Customs authorities to collect relevant information and evidence relating to contraventions of the Act, and that such statements, if found to be voluntary, are substantive pieces of evidence capable of being relied upon in support of the prosecution case. 22. The High Court further noted that the appellants had failed to establish any material to demonstrate that the statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 were obtained under coercion, inducement, or threat, and in the absence of such proof, the statements could not be discarded. The High Court negated the contention that the conviction was based solely on the statements recorded under Section 108, observing that such statements had led to further discovery of incriminating material, including contraband articles and money, duly documented through panchnamas and corroborated b....