2002 (4) TMI 91 - HC - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under the Customs Act.
2. Conviction under the Gold Control Act.
3. Conviction under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.
4. Validity of sanction and authorization.
5. Admissibility of confessions made to Customs Officers.
6. Insufficient evidence against certain accused.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction under the Customs Act:
The accused Nos. 1 and 2 were convicted under Section 111(d) read with 135(i)(b)(i) of the Customs Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment (RI) for 2 years and a fine of Rs. 3,000/-. Accused No. 3 was also convicted under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act read with 13(I) and 67 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and Section 3(2) of the Exports and Imports Act read with 135(I)(b)(I) of the Customs Act, receiving a similar sentence. Accused Nos. 4 to 7 were convicted under Section 111(d) read with 135(b)(I) of the Customs Act and sentenced to RI for one year and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each.

2. Conviction under the Gold Control Act:
Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were convicted under Section 71 read with 85(1)(ii)(a) of the Gold Control Act and sentenced to RI for one year and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each. Accused No. 3 received a similar conviction and sentence under the same sections.

3. Conviction under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act:
Accused No. 3 was convicted under Section 11 read with 13(i) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, and sentenced to RI for 2 years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-.

4. Validity of Sanction and Authorization:
The Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai, acquitted all the accused, citing improper sanction orders and lack of proper authorization. The appellate Judge found that the sanction order was not properly given, and the officer who issued it was not examined. The authorization (Ex. P38) was rejected due to the absence of oral evidence to prove it. The appellate Judge also questioned the Collector of Central Excise and Customs' power to issue the notification (Ex. P41).

5. Admissibility of Confessions Made to Customs Officers:
The court held that confessions made to Customs Officers do not attract the mischief of Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, as Customs Officers are not Police Officers. The statements were recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, which are admissible in evidence. The Supreme Court's rulings in Ramesh Chandra Mehta v. State of West Bengal and Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Rajamundry v. Duncan Agro Industries Ltd. were cited to support this view.

6. Insufficient Evidence Against Certain Accused:
The appellate Judge acquitted accused Nos. 3 to 7 due to lack of corroborative evidence. The statements of accused Nos. 1 and 2 (Exs. P9 and P10) were deemed insufficient to convict accused No. 3, as there was no direct evidence linking him to the crime. Similarly, no recoveries were made from accused Nos. 4 to 7, and their convictions were based solely on their statements and those of co-accused, which could not form the sole basis for conviction.

Conclusion:
The appellate court's judgment acquitting accused Nos. 3 to 7 was confirmed, and the appeals against their acquittal were dismissed. However, the conviction and sentence of accused Nos. 1 and 2 by the trial court were restored, and the trial court was directed to take steps to arrest them to undergo the sentence.

← Previous Next →