Convictions for Smuggled Watches Affirmed but Sentences Reduced to Time Served

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard appeals against a common judgment of the Gujarat High Court which dismissed revisions and affirmed convictions under Section 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 in a 1985 smuggling case. The appeals challenged the legality of convictions founded substantially on statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act and sought reversal of both conviction and sentence.

The Court upheld the findings of guilt recorded by the trial Court and affirmed the concurrent conclusions of the appellate and High Courts that statements under Section 108, if voluntary, were admissible and could be relied upon as substantive evidence. The Court noted that the High Court had correctly held that the appellants had not established that the Section 108 statements were obtained by coercion, inducement or threat, and that those statements led to further discovery and recoveries which constituted independent corroborative evidence. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The High Court further noted that the appellants had failed to establish any material to demonstrate that the statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 were obtained under coercion, inducement, or threat, and in the absence of such proof, the statements could not be discarded. The High Court negated the contention that the conviction was based solely on the statements recorded under Section 108, observing that such statements had led to further discovery of incriminating material, including contraband articles and money, duly documented through panchnamas and corroborated by the testimony of Customs Officers. It was held that such discoveries and recoveries constituted independent and relevant evidence within the meaning of Sections 6, 10, and 11 of the Evidence Act, thereby lending corroborative support to the statements made under Section 108. Consequently, it was held that the conviction of 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.” The Court also recorded that, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, “ends of justice would be served by reducing the sentence to the term already undergone by the appellants.”

Background
The prosecution alleged that in April 1985 Customs officers recovered two gunny sacks from pits near a jetty at Mandvi; inspection revealed 777 foreign-made wrist watches and 879 watch straps of prominent brands with an estimated value of Rs.2,22,190/-. The goods were confiscated as smuggled property and a complaint followed. Twenty-one accused were charged under Section 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act. The trial Court convicted accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 and sentenced each to three years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine; others were acquitted. The convictions were affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court dismissed revisions.

Before this Court the appellants contended that convictions rested solely on confessional statements recorded under Section 108 and that one Hussein Mamad Bhadala—whose statement formed the basis for implicating others—had been subjected to custodial torture and later died; an FIR alleging offences against Customs officials was said to have been registered. The State relied on panchnamas, recoveries, documentary evidence and officer testimony as corroboration. The High Court and this Court relied on established precedent that Section 108 statements, if voluntary, were substantive and admissible (see K.I. Pavunny). Finding no material to show coercion or inducement, the courts treated the Section 108 statements together with independent recoveries as sufficient corroboration. While the conviction was maintained, the Supreme Court considered mitigation on sentence given the long delay since 1985, the abandoned nature of the recovered consignment, the appellants’ advanced age, the period already undergone in custody (about one year), and the statutory minimum six months then applicable; it reduced the sentence to the period already undergone and discharged bail bonds. The appeals were partly allowed to that limited extent.

Case Details:
Case No.: 2026 INSC 180 (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1000 of 2012 and 1232-1237 of 2012)
Case Title: Amad Noormamad Bakali v. The State of Gujarat & Ors.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ravi Panwar (Advocate) for appellant Amad Noormamad Bakali; Shri Amar Dave (Senior Counsel) for other appellants
For the Respondent(s): Shri Raja Thakare (Additional Solicitor General) for the State of Gujarat