Court’s decision
The Supreme Court of India partly allowed criminal appeals arising from a 1985 smuggling case under Section 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. While affirming the concurrent findings of conviction recorded by the trial court, appellate court, and Gujarat High Court, the Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the surviving appellants.
The Court held that statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act are admissible and can form substantive evidence if voluntary. Finding no perversity in the conviction, but noting the lapse of nearly four decades and substantial incarceration already undergone, the Court deemed further imprisonment unduly harsh.
Facts
The prosecution case originated from secret intelligence received by Customs authorities at Mandvi in April 1985 regarding concealed smuggled foreign wristwatches. Acting upon the tip-off, officers conducted a search near a fisherman’s jetty and recovered two jute sacks buried in pits on a newly laid road opposite the Mandvi Gram Panchayat Rest House.
Upon opening the sacks in the presence of panch witnesses, 777 foreign-made wristwatches of brands such as Seiko, Citizen, and Ricoh, along with 879 watch straps, were recovered. The total estimated value was ₹2,22,190. A seizure panchnama was prepared, and the goods were confiscated under the Customs Act on the reasonable belief that they had been illegally imported.
Further investigation allegedly linked the smuggled consignment to a vessel and implicated multiple accused persons in concealing, transporting, and dealing with goods liable to confiscation. A complaint was filed in January 1987 against 21 accused persons.
Issues
The principal legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the conviction of the appellants could be sustained primarily on the basis of statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act.
Additionally, the Court considered whether the sentence of three years’ rigorous imprisonment required interference, especially in light of the prolonged passage of time and custodial period already undergone.
Appellants’ arguments
Counsel for the appellants argued that the conviction was unsustainable as it was allegedly founded solely on the confessional statement of one co-accused recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. It was contended that there was no independent corroborative evidence linking the appellants to conscious possession or active handling of smuggled goods.
It was further argued that the alleged statements were extracted under coercion, and reference was made to an FIR lodged against Customs officials for custodial torture in relation to the investigation.
On sentence, the appellants emphasized that the incident dated back to 1985, several co-accused had been acquitted, some appellants had since passed away, and the surviving appellants had already undergone nearly one year of incarceration. Considering the statutory minimum of six months under the proviso to Section 135(1)(b)(i), reduction of sentence to the period already undergone was sought.
Respondent’s arguments
The Additional Solicitor General opposed the plea for leniency, submitting that the case involved a significant smuggling operation of foreign-origin goods and that the appellants did not deserve any indulgence.
It was argued that the findings of guilt had been concurrently recorded by three courts and were supported not only by statements under Section 108 but also by recoveries and documentary evidence.
Analysis of the law
The Supreme Court examined the evidentiary value of statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The High Court had relied on the decision in K.I. Pavunny v. Assistant Collector (HQ), Central Excise Collectorate, Cochin, which recognized that statements recorded by authorized Customs officers are admissible and can constitute substantive evidence if voluntary.
The Court reaffirmed that such statements do not automatically attract the bar under Sections 24, 30 or 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provided there is no proof of coercion or inducement.
The High Court had also found corroborative material in the form of recoveries and panchnamas, treating them as relevant evidence under Sections 6, 10 and 11 of the Evidence Act. The Supreme Court found no error in this approach.
Precedent analysis
The judgment reaffirmed the ratio of K.I. Pavunny, holding that Section 108 confers investigative powers on Customs authorities to collect evidence and that voluntary statements recorded thereunder may be relied upon.
The Court declined to reappreciate concurrent factual findings under Article 136 of the Constitution, emphasizing that interference is warranted only where perversity, illegality, or manifest error is demonstrated. No such infirmity was found in the present case.
Court’s reasoning
The Court observed that the recovery occurred in 1985 and that the contraband was found in an abandoned condition. It noted that conscious possession was not directly attributed to the appellants and that several co-accused had been acquitted.
It was undisputed that the appellants had undergone nearly one year of incarceration during the pendency of proceedings and had been on bail since 2011. Some appellants had passed away during the appeal’s pendency.
Considering that the statutory minimum sentence under the proviso to Section 135(1)(b)(i) was six months, and given the advanced age of surviving appellants and lapse of nearly four decades, the Court held that further incarceration would not serve the ends of justice.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction under Section 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. The appellants, who were on bail, were not required to surrender, and their bail bonds were discharged.
The appeals were partly allowed to the limited extent of sentence reduction.
Implications
This judgment reiterates the evidentiary significance of Section 108 statements in Customs Act prosecutions, provided voluntariness is established. It underscores that such statements can constitute substantive evidence and need not be discarded in absence of proof of coercion.
At the same time, the ruling reflects judicial sensitivity in sentencing, especially in old economic offences where prolonged litigation, age of accused, and period already undergone weigh heavily in favour of leniency.
The decision balances enforcement of anti-smuggling laws with proportionality in punishment.
Case Law References
- K.I. Pavunny v. Assistant Collector (HQ), Central Excise Collectorate, Cochin (1997) 3 SCC 721 – Held that statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act are admissible and can be relied upon if voluntary. Applied to affirm conviction.
The Court relied on this precedent to uphold the evidentiary value of Section 108 statements.
FAQs
1. Are statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act admissible in evidence?
Yes. If recorded by authorized officers and made voluntarily, such statements are admissible and can form substantive evidence.
2. Can conviction be based on Section 108 statements alone?
Yes, if voluntary and corroborated by surrounding circumstances. Courts will examine whether there is material suggesting coercion.
3. Can old economic offence cases result in sentence reduction?
Courts may reduce sentences considering lapse of time, age of accused, and period already undergone, especially where statutory minimum is low.
