The Supreme Court of India has affirmed the conviction of several individuals involved in a 1985 smuggling case while reducing their sentences to the period already undergone. A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that directing the appellants—who are now of advanced age—to undergo further incarceration nearly four decades after the incident would be “unduly harsh.”
The appeals arose from a December 2010 judgment of the Gujarat High Court, which had dismissed revision applications filed by seven accused persons. The High Court had affirmed their conviction under Section 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, originally handed down by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhuj-Kachchh, in 2003. While the Supreme Court upheld the findings of guilt, it partially allowed the appeals by modifying the quantum of the three-year rigorous imprisonment sentence to the period of approximately one year already served by the appellants.
Background and Prosecution Case
The case dates back to April 30, 1985, when Customs officers at Mandvi received secret intelligence regarding prohibited foreign wristwatches concealed near a fisherman’s jetty. A search conducted at the site led to the excavation of two pits containing jute sacks. Upon inspection, officers recovered 777 foreign-made wristwatches (brands including Seiko, Citizen, and Ricoh) and 879 watch straps, valued at approximately ₹2,22,190.
Further investigation suggested the goods were smuggled into India in February 1985 aboard the ship Safina-Tul-Firdaus. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were identified as owners of the ship, while Accused No. 3 was the captain. Other accused were alleged to have participated in concealing, transporting, or selling the goods. A criminal complaint was filed in 1987 against 21 persons.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants’ Contentions: Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the conviction was based solely on the confessional statements of one Hussein Mamad Bhadala, recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. They contended that Bhadala had succumbed to injuries allegedly inflicted during custodial torture, leading to an FIR against Customs officials.
Senior Advocate Shri Amar Dave, appearing for several appellants, noted that two of the original accused had passed away during the pendency of the appeals. He emphasized that the survivors were now of advanced age and had already spent nearly one year in custody—exceeding the statutory minimum of six months prescribed in the proviso to Section 135(1)(b)(i) as it stood then.
Respondent’s Contention: Shri Raja Thakare, learned Additional Solicitor General, opposed the plea for leniency. He argued that given the scale of the smuggling operation, the appellants did not deserve any reduction in sentence.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court addressed the evidentiary value of statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. Citing K.I. Pavunny v. Assistant Collector (HQ), Central Excise Collectorate, Cochin (1997), the Court agreed with the High Court that such statements are “substantive pieces of evidence” and do not attract the bars found in the Indian Evidence Act if made voluntarily.
The Bench noted:
“The conviction of the appellants was not based merely on confessional statements but in addition thereto, the prosecution provided tangible corroborative evidence. Therefore, the judgment of conviction did not suffer from perversity or legal infirmity.”
However, regarding the sentence, the Court took a different view based on the passage of time. It observed that the recovery was from 1985, the consignment was found in an abandoned condition, and “conscious possession” was not directly attributed to the appellants.
The Decision
While affirming the judgment of conviction, the Court decided to intervene on the quantum of punishment. The Bench stated:
“In this backdrop, considering the totality of circumstances, including the fact that the incident is nearly four decades old, the period of incarceration already undergone by the appellants, the prolonged pendency of proceedings, and the advanced age of the surviving appellants, we are of the considered view that directing the appellants to undergo any further incarceration at this point of time would be unduly harsh and would not subserve the ends of justice.”
The Court ordered the reduction of the sentence to the period already undergone. As the appellants were already on bail, the Court directed that they need not surrender and discharged their bail bonds.
Case Title: Amad Noormamad Bakali vs. The State of Gujarat & Ors.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1000 of 2012 (with connected appeals)
