Legal Provisions Involved: Section 135(1)(b)(i) and Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962
Judgement by: Supreme Court of India
Judge/Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Facts
In April 1985, Customs officers in Gujarat, recovered two jute sacks containing 777 smuggled foreign wrist watches and 879 watch straps. The accused were charged with concealing, transporting, and selling smuggled goods under the Customs Act.
Key Legal Provisions
Section 135(1)(b)(i) and Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962
Issues raised
- Whether conviction based primarily on confessional statements under Section 108 is legally sustainable.
- Whether the sentence should be reduced considering the Appellants’ age and time already served.
Arguments of the case
The Appellant argued that conviction rested solely on confessional statements recorded under Section 108, which were allegedly obtained under custodial torture, and lacked independent corroborative evidence. The Respondent, on the other hand, pointed out that given the magnitude of the smuggling operation, the Appellants deserved no leniency regarding sentencing.
Judgement
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, holding that Section 108 statements are admissible if voluntary, and were corroborated by recoveries documented through panchnamas. However, considering the Appellants’ advanced age, and one year of incarceration, the Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone.
Click here to VIEW the full judgement.
