Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 1988 (8) TMI HC This
Issues Involved:
1. Reasonable belief of smuggling under Section 123 of the Customs Act. 2. Ownership and possession of the seized diamonds. 3. Applicability of procedural amendments to Section 123 of the Customs Act. 4. Burden of proof regarding the smuggled nature of the diamonds. 5. Validity of the appellate court's acquittal judgment. 6. Impact of delay on the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. Detailed Analysis: 1. Reasonable Belief of Smuggling under Section 123 of the Customs Act: The prosecution aimed to prove that the diamonds were recovered from the respondent in the reasonable belief that they were smuggled, thereby invoking Section 123 of the Customs Act. The seizing officer, L.N. Majumdar, did not explicitly state his reasonable belief in his deposition, but his actions and the circumstances suggested such belief. The court held that the reasonable belief could be inferred from the officer's overall testimony and the endorsement in the search list. Furthermore, it was clarified that the reasonable belief need not be held solely by the seizing officer but could also be held by a superior officer, as supported by the evidence of M.L. Wadhawan, who directed the seizure based on his belief. 2. Ownership and Possession of the Seized Diamonds: The respondent admitted ownership of the diamonds but claimed they were inherited and not smuggled. The appellate court acquitted the respondent, stating the prosecution failed to prove possession. The High Court disagreed, stating that ownership implies possession for the purposes of Section 123. The court emphasized that the procedural amendment to Section 123 in 1973, which shifted the burden of proof to the owner, applies retrospectively as it pertains to procedural law. 3. Applicability of Procedural Amendments to Section 123 of the Customs Act: The court held that procedural amendments to Section 123 apply retrospectively. This was supported by the Supreme Court's decision in Balumal Jamnadas Batra v. State of Maharashtra, which established that procedural rules could be applied during trial regardless of when the recovery was made. Thus, the amendment shifting the burden of proof to the respondent was applicable. 4. Burden of Proof Regarding the Smuggled Nature of the Diamonds: The court reiterated that under Section 123, once goods are seized in the reasonable belief of being smuggled, the burden shifts to the respondent to prove otherwise. The respondent's claim of inheritance lacked supporting evidence, and his own statements failed to account for the possession of the diamonds. The court found that the respondent did not discharge his burden of proof. 5. Validity of the Appellate Court's Acquittal Judgment: The High Court found the appellate court's judgment unreasonable and perverse, as it failed to consider the reasonable belief of smuggling and misinterpreted the possession aspect. The appellate court's decision to acquit the respondent was overturned, and the respondent was found guilty under Section 135(1)(b)(ii) of the Customs Act. 6. Impact of Delay on the Right to a Speedy Trial under Article 21 of the Constitution: The respondent argued that the long delay in the trial violated his right to a speedy trial. The court noted that the delay was partly due to the respondent's own actions, including multiple revisional applications. The court distinguished this case from precedents where delays led to quashing of proceedings, emphasizing that the delay here did not justify upholding the acquittal. Conclusion: The High Court reversed the appellate court's acquittal, finding the respondent guilty under Section 135(1)(b)(ii) of the Customs Act. The respondent was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for the period already served and a fine of Rs. 5000, with an additional six months of rigorous imprisonment in default of payment. The judgment emphasized the procedural aspects of the Customs Act, the burden of proof, and the implications of reasonable belief in smuggling cases.
|