1988 (1) TMI 48 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Revision against conviction and sentence passed under Section 135 of the Customs Act.
2. Recovery of contraband articles from accused-petitioner's house.
3. Validity of confessional statements made by the accused.
4. Validity of sanction for prosecuting the accused under Section 135 of the Customs Act.

Analysis:
1. The revision was filed against the conviction and sentence passed under Section 135 of the Customs Act. The accused-petitioners challenged the judgment of the Session Judge, Cuttack, confirming their conviction and sentence by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack in a criminal case. The prosecution's case revolved around the recovery of contraband articles from the accused-petitioner's house, leading to proceedings under Section 135 of the Customs Act.

2. The prosecution presented evidence through four prosecution witnesses, including customs officials and an independent witness. The witnesses testified that contraband articles, such as foreign liquors, were recovered from the accused-petitioner's house on the basis of a search warrant. The defense argued that the contraband articles were not found in their possession, but the court found the prosecution witnesses' evidence credible and corroborated, establishing the accused's connection to the recovered items.

3. The prosecution relied on confessional statements voluntarily made by the accused-petitioners. While the defense claimed the statements were obtained under pressure and not true, the court found no substantial evidence during cross-examination to discredit the confessional statements. The court held that the confessional statements supported the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses regarding the recovery of contraband articles.

4. The defense contended that the trial was vitiated due to the lack of valid sanction for prosecuting the accused under Section 135 of the Customs Act. The defense cited a previous case emphasizing the importance of proper sanction. However, the court examined the sanction order (Ext. 9) and concluded that it contained all necessary facts and was granted after due consideration. The court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case under Section 135 of the Customs Act, dismissing the revision petition.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the lower courts' findings, affirming the prosecution's case against the accused under Section 135 of the Customs Act. The revision petition was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence against the accused-petitioners were upheld based on the evidence presented during the trial.