Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to a criminal appeal filed by the Union of India (through the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, DRI) against the acquittal of Smt. Ameenabi (Respondent No.1) by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, in CC No. 198/CW/88. The respondent was tried for offences under Section 135(1)(b) read with Section 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, and Sections 85(1)(ii) and 85(1)(a) read with Section 8(1) of the Gold Control Act, 1968. The facts reveal that on 04.02.1988, DRI officers, acting on information that one Mr. Afzal Weldon was involved in gold smuggling and storing gold at his sister's residence, searched the respondent's flat in Mumbai. During the search, the respondent allegedly locked herself in a bedroom and threw two packets out of the window, which were retrieved and found to contain gold bars. Subsequently, three more packets were recovered from the bedroom, totaling 100 gold bars weighing 1000 tolas (11,660 grams). The respondent did not produce any documents showing authorized possession. Her statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act was recorded, wherein she stated that her brother Afzal Weldon, who supported her family after her husband's death, had informed her that he would send his man with packets containing gold bars for storage, and she agreed. She was arrested and later granted bail. The Trial Court acquitted her, leading to the present appeal. The DRI argued that the contraband gold was recovered from the respondent's residence in her presence, that she attempted to destroy evidence, and that her confessional statement corroborated the recovery. They contended that the Trial Court erred in holding that conscious possession was not proved. The respondent did not appear, but the State adopted the DRI's submissions. The High Court, after perusing the record, held that under Section 397 CrPC, it cannot re-appreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal unless the findings are perverse. The Court found that the Trial Court's conclusion that conscious possession was not established was a plausible view, given that the respondent was merely storing gold for her brother and her confession was retracted. The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Acquittal Appeal - Revisional Jurisdiction - Section 397 CrPC - Scope of Interference - The High Court cannot embark upon re-appreciation of evidence in an appeal against acquittal unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. - Held that the Trial Court's conclusion that conscious possession was not proved was a plausible view, and no interference was warranted. (Paras 9-10) B) Customs Law - Gold Smuggling - Conscious Possession - Sections 135(1)(b), 135(1)(i) Customs Act, 1962 - The prosecution must prove that the accused had knowledge and control over the contraband. - Held that the respondent's retracted confession and the circumstances did not conclusively establish conscious possession, as she was merely storing gold for her brother without full awareness of its illegal origin. (Paras 5.2-5.3, 9-10) C) Gold Control Act - Unauthorized Possession - Sections 85(1)(ii), 85(1)(a) read with Section 8(1) Gold Control Act, 1968 - Possession of primary gold without a license is an offence. - Held that the respondent's possession was not proved to be conscious or with requisite mens rea, and the Trial Court's acquittal was based on a reasonable doubt. (Paras 3, 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court's judgment of acquittal dated 14.10.1998 was perverse or erroneous, warranting interference by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Trial Court's judgment of acquittal dated 14.10.1998.
Law Points
- Acquittal appeal
- Revisional jurisdiction
- Conscious possession
- Gold smuggling
- Customs Act
- Gold Control Act
- Retracted confession
- Appreciation of evidence
