1972 (9) TMI 51 - SC - Customs

Whether there was absolutely no admissible evidence to convict the appellant of the offences with which he was charged or to confiscate the currency notes because the statement alleged to have been made by him to the Customs Officer in fact was made to the police officer or if it is held to be made to the Customs Officer it was made in the presence of the police as such was inadmissible in evidence? Held that - The order of the Collector confiscating the currency notes and awarding the punishment does not suffer from any infirmity and the appeal is accordingly dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Conviction under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947.
2. Confiscation of currency notes and penalty imposition.
3. Admissibility of confessional statements.
4. Attempted smuggling of currency notes across the border.
5. Legal provisions under the Land Customs Act and Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.

Analysis:
1. The appellant was convicted under Sections 8(2), 23A, and 23B of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, for attempting to smuggle currency notes across the border. The appellant, along with another individual, was caught with a tin box containing currency notes of substantial value near the Pakistan border. The conviction was based on witness statements and evidence of the attempted smuggling.

2. The Collector of Customs ordered the confiscation of the currency notes and imposed penalties on the appellant and the accomplice. Despite appeals and revision applications, the orders were upheld. The appellant challenged the admissibility of confessional statements and the confiscation of currency notes, citing lack of evidence and improper procedure.

3. The admissibility of confessional statements made to Customs Officers was a key point of contention. The appellant argued that statements made to police officers were inadmissible. However, the Court held that confessions made to Customs Officers were admissible, as established in previous judgments.

4. The Court analyzed the circumstances of the attempted smuggling, noting that the appellant and the accomplice were seen near the border with a tin box and attempted to evade the nakabandi party. Witness statements and evidence supported the conclusion that an attempt to smuggle currency notes across the border had occurred.

5. The judgment delved into the legal provisions of the Land Customs Act and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. It highlighted the restrictions on taking foreign exchange out of India without permission and the consequences of attempting to contravene these provisions. The Court found the Collector's order regarding confiscation and penalty imposition to be valid, dismissing the appeal with costs.