Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard appeals against a common judgment of the Gujarat High Court dated 21 December 2010, which dismissed criminal revision applications and affirmed the conviction of the appellants under Section 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. The case involved the recovery of 777 foreign wrist watches and 879 watch straps from two jute sacks concealed near a fisherman's jetty in Mandvi on 30 April 1985. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, including ship owners and crew, knowingly dealt with smuggled goods. The trial court convicted seven accused persons, sentencing them to three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The appellate court and High Court upheld the conviction. In the Supreme Court, appellants argued that the conviction relied solely on confessional statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 without independent corroboration. The Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the convictions based on the evidence on record.
Headnote
The Supreme Court dismissed criminal appeals challenging the conviction under Section 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 for smuggling foreign wrist watches -- The appellants were convicted based on confessional statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and recovery of smuggled goods -- The High Court had affirmed the trial court's judgment, which was upheld by the Supreme Court -- The Court held that the confessional statements were corroborated by other evidence, making the conviction legally sustainable
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: The Issue of whether the conviction based solely on confessional statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 is legally sustainable without independent corroborative evidence
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access critical case issues
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the criminal appeals and upheld the convictions of the appellants under Section 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, affirming the judgments of the lower courts
2026 LawText (SC) (02) 56
Criminal Appeal No(s). 1000 of 2012, Criminal Appeal No(s). 1232-1237 of 2012
Vikram Nath J. , Sandeep Mehta J.
Mr. Ravi Panwar, Shri Amar Dave
Amad Noormamad Bakali, Aamad Alimamad Paleja, Anwarali Abdula Sama, Chamanlal Kakubhai Thakkar, Ismail Alimamad Paleja, Ismail Ibrahim Mandhara, Abdul Jumma Mandhara
The State of Gujarat & Ors.
Premium Content
The Indexes are only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access critical case indexes
Nature of Litigation: Criminal appeal against conviction under the Customs Act, 1962 for smuggling foreign wrist watches
Remedy Sought
Appellants seeking acquittal by challenging the conviction upheld by the High Court
Filing Reason
Appellants filed appeals by special leave against the High Court judgment affirming their conviction
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted accused under Section 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 on 26 March 2003 -- Appellate court dismissed appeals on 21 May 2005 -- High Court dismissed revisions on 21 December 2010
Issues
Whether the conviction based solely on confessional statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 is legally sustainable without independent corroborative evidence
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants knowingly dealt with smuggled goods under Section 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that conviction relied solely on confessional statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 without independent corroboration
Appellants contended that the recovery of goods was from an abandoned condition and did not link them directly to the offence
Ratio Decidendi
Confessional statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 can form the basis for conviction if corroborated by other evidence, and the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt
Judgment Excerpts
The conviction of the appellant is based solely on the confessional statement of Hussein Mamad Bhadala recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962
The case of the Customs Department is based on the recovery dated 30 April 1985 wherein, 777 wrist watches and 879 watch straps of foreign origin recovered from two gunny bags
Procedural History
Criminal complaint filed on 19 January 1987 -- Trial court convicted accused on 26 March 2003 -- Appellate court dismissed appeals on 21 May 2005 -- High Court dismissed revisions on 21 December 2010 -- Supreme Court appeals filed and dismissed
Premium Content
The Indexes are only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access critical case indexes
