Supreme Court Reduces Sentence in Decades-Old Smuggling Case, Supreme Court affirms conviction but reduces sentence of accused in 1985 smuggling case, citing advanced age and time served.
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has delivered a judgment reducing the sentence of several appellants involved in a decades-old smuggling case, while affirming their convictions. The decision pertains to a case dating back to April 1985, wherein foreign wristwatches were seized by Customs authorities in Mandvi, Gujarat. The appellants, including Amad Noormamad Bakali, were convicted under Section 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, for their alleged involvement in the smuggling operation.
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, heard the appeals against the common judgment dated December 21, 2010, from the Gujarat High Court, which had upheld the trial court's conviction of the appellants. The appellants had been sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs. 2,000 each.
The case involved the confiscation of 777 foreign wristwatches and 879 straps, valued at over Rs. 2.22 lakh, believed to have been smuggled into India. The trial court had convicted the appellants based on confessional statements made under Section 108 of the Customs Act, which were found to be voluntary and admissible as evidence.
While upholding the conviction, the Supreme Court considered the advanced age of the appellants, the substantial incarceration already undergone, and the significant time lapse since the incident. The court observed that forcing the appellants to undergo further imprisonment would be unduly harsh and contrary to the interests of justice. Consequently, the court reduced their sentences to the time already served.
The Supreme Court's decision reflects a careful balancing of legal principles and humanitarian considerations, acknowledging the extensive period since the offence and the appellants' current circumstances. The appeals were partly allowed, and the appellants, already on bail, were not required to surrender, with their bail bonds discharged.
Bottom Line:
Statements recorded under this section are admissible in evidence and do not attract the bar under Sections 24, 30, or 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provided they are made voluntarily.
Statutory provision(s): Customs Act, 1962 Section 108, Customs Act, 1962 Section 135(1)(b)(i), Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Sections 24, 30, 34.
Amad Noormamad Bakali v. State of Gujarat, (SC) : Law Finder Doc id # 2857172
