Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + SC Customs - 1970 (3) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1970 (3) TMI 57 - SUPREME COURTWhether the statements, if any, alleged to have been made by the two Mohammads and Ghulam Rasool were inadmissible in evidence as having been made while they were in police custody? Whether there was no material on record to connect him with the alleged smugglers or with the smuggled gold or with the act of smuggling and there was no basis for a reasonable belief that he was a person concerned in the importation of the gold? Whether the maximum penalty which could be imposed under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act was only ₹ 1,000/-? Held that:- A faint argument was made that the statements of the two Mohammads or Ghulam Rasool were inadmissible in evidence as having been made before a police officer as in our view there is no substance in this point because the statements were recorded by a Customs Officer duly investigating into a case where allegations were made about the smuggling of gold. At that stage no criminal case had been started against them in respect of such smuggling and it is difficult to see how such statements can be said to be inadmissible in evidence. As regards to penalty it is a matter of no moment as the order of the Collector passed on 9th August, 1959, clearly showed that the confiscation had been ordered under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, read with Section 19 of the Act as made applicable by Section 23A of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and the personal penalty was imposed under these provisions of law. Thus if the gold smuggled weighed 692 tolas of which the value would not be less than rupees one lakh a penalty of ₹ 50,000/- was certainly not out of proportion to the gravity of the offence No substance in the argument that the appellant could not be said to be a person concerned in the smuggling of gold even if it were to be held that he had paid ₹ 16,000/- to the other three persons for bringing the gold into India. If the Collector was free to proceed on the basis of the statements recorded which went to show that gold of the value of rupees one lakh was smuggled into India at the instance of and for the benefit of the appellant who had paid out a large sum of money for the purpose, it is difficult to see how he could be said to be a person not interested or concerned in the act of smuggling. Appeal dismissed.
|