Case: Veera Ibrahim Vs. State Of Maharashtra

Veera Ibrahim, appellant was accused No. 2 in the complaint filed by Assistant Collector of Customs, Preventive Department. Bombay before the Chief Presidency Magistrate for his prosecution along with one Abdul Umrao Rauf, accused No. 1 in respect of offences under Section 135(a) and 135(B) ofthe Customs Act, 1962 and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The trial Magistrate convicted both the accused on all the three charges and sentenced them to two years rigorous imprisonment on each count with a direction that the sentences would run concurrently. Against that judgment, two separate appeals were filed by the convicts in the Bombay High Court which acquitted both the accused of the offences under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and under Section 135(b) of the Customs Act, but maintained their conviction on the charge under Section 135(a) of that Act reducing the sentence to one years rigorous imprisonment. The High Court, however, granted a certificate under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution, on the basis of which, this appeal has been filed.

Reasoning: 11. Even in respect of that offence, the police did not register any case of enter any F.I.R. which normally furnishes a foundation for commencing a police investigation. The police did not open the packages or prepare inventories of the goods packed therein. Indeed, the police appear to have dropped further proceedings. They did not take any steps for prosecuting the appellant event for an offence underthe Bombay Police Act, 1951. They informed the customs authorities, who opened the packages, inspected the goods and on finding them contraband goods, seized them under a panchnama. The customs authorities called the appellant and his companion to the customs house, took them into custody, and after due compliance with the requirements of law, the Inspector of Customs questioned the appellant and recorded his statement under Section 108 of the customs Act. Under the circumstances it was manifest that at the time when the customs officer recorded the statement of the appellant, the latter was not formally "accused of any offence". The High Court was therefore right in holding that the statement recorded by the Inspector of Customs was not hit by Article 20(3) of the Constitution25. We are unable to accept this contention. While it is true that in the absence of the requisite notification, the statutory presumption under Section 123 could not be involved by the prosecution, the circumstances established unerringly raise an inference with regard to all the factual ingredients of an offence under Section 135(b) read with Section 135(ii) of the Customs Act. In Ex. I which was proved by PW 4, it is admitted that these packages which were later found to contain contraband goods by the customs authorities, were surreptitiously loaded in the truck under cover of darkness at Reti Bunder (seashore) from the side of seaside wall, in the presence of the appellant, and thereafter the first accused took the wheel, while the appellant sat by his side in the truck, and drove towards Sandhurst railway station. It is further admitted that some bania paid Rs. 2, 000 to the appellant which was meant to be given to the driver of the truck. Unfortunately, the truck skidded near the Dongri police station and came to a stop. On hearing the impact of the accident, the police came out, took both the accused into the police station and seized the truck and the goods. In short, the appellant had clearly admitted that these packages containing the contraband goods were imported surreptitiously from Reti Bunder under cover of darkness. It was further established de hors the statement of the appellant, that these packages, on opening by the customs officer, were found to contain contraband goods of foreign make. They were brand new articles packed in bulk. The circumstances of the arrest of the appellant while escaping from the truck the seizure of the truck and the goods, the contraband nature of the goods, the fact that at the time of the seizure the goods were in the charge of the appellant, the fact that no duty on these goods had been paid, the seizure of Rs. 2, 000 as cash from the appellant etc. were proved by evidence aliunde rendered by PWs 1 and 2. To some extent, the hostile witness, PW 5 also, supported the prosecution. The circumstances established unmistakably and irresistibly pointed to the conclusion that the appellant was knowingly concerned in a fraudulent attempt at evasion, if not, fraudulent evasion, of duty chargeable on those contraband goods.