Jai Prakash Mandal and Raghubir Sharma vs Union of India and Others

S.N. Pathak, J.—This revision is directed against the judgment dated 9.2.98 rendered by Special Judge, Economic Offences, Purnea, in Special Case No. 3/97, Trial No. 53/98. The revisionists were convicted for the offence u/s 135 of the Customs Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for four years. The appellate court in its judgment dated 23.5.2001 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Purnea, in Cr. Appeal no. 8/98 upheld the order of conviction and reduced the sentence from four years imprisonment to 3 years R.I. It has been submitted by the revisionists'' lawyer that they were allegedly found in possession of gold biscuits which were of foreign make and they were attested at Forbisganj Railway Station when Special raid was conducted on the Katihar-bound train. However, the revisionists had denied the seizure and they further contended that the seized materials are not of foreign make. The alleged confessional statement recorded by the Customs Officials were not brought on the record of the case and the seized materials were also not brought on the record of the case. On these grounds, it has been submitted by the revisionists'' lawyer that the revisionists may be exonerated from the charges.

However, it is apparent that almost all the members of the raiding party consisting of the Customs Officials were examined in the court below and in course of trial they said in positive statement that the seized goods were of foreign make and the marks bearing on them indicated that they were of foreign origin. Moreover, they further stated that the revisionists had confessed their guilt of smuggling of foreign goods. Of course, the confessional statement could not be brought on the record of the case, but the statements of P.Ws. regarding the alleged confession would amount to extra judicial confession before the Customs Officials who are not deemed to be the Police Officers within the provision of Evidence Act. Of course, the seized materials were not produced, but the seizure list (Ext. 1) was on the record which would be treated as collateral evidence of seizure coupled with the evidence of the P.Ws.

In the aforesaid circumstances, the seizure of the concerned alleged goods was well established. Now the submission of the revisionists is that the seized goods were not of foreign make or that they were not smuggled goods. No evidence except denial from the mouth of the revisionists came. In such a circumstance, I think that the prosecution had established its case that the revisionists were found in possession of smuggled goods punishable u/s 135 of the Customs Act.

The maximum punishment for this kind of offence is 5 years imprisonment. The appellate court reduced the sentence to three years imprisonment. This kind of offence has become common and rampant and, therefore, I am not going to reduce the sentence any further. In the result, this revision is dismissed.