Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the acquittal of the respondent, Amalio Simoes, by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court, Esplanade, Bombay, in Case No.27/CW/88 for offences punishable under sections 135(1)(a)(i) and 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with section 13(2) and section 18(1) read with section 67 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The prosecution alleged that on 14.2.1987, based on information, customs officers searched the accused's residence at Zeni house, 2nd Marine Street, Dhobi Talao, Bombay, and recovered 172 notes of 500 UAE Dirhams, 31 notes of 500 Quatar Riyals, and Indian currency of Rs.31,400/-, totaling Rs.3,61,275/-. The accused allegedly confessed that the currency was sale proceeds of smuggled gold bars. The accused pleaded not guilty, claiming he resided at Santacruz and the room at Zeni house was occupied by Santano Fernandes. The prosecution examined four witnesses: two customs officers (PW1 Abhijit Gangopadhyay and PW2 T.S. Jairam) and two independent panch witnesses (PW3 Lawrance B. Martin and PW4). The trial court acquitted the accused, finding contradictions in the evidence of the customs officers and panch witnesses regarding the search and seizure, and that the accused's statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act was not voluntary. The High Court, in appeal, upheld the acquittal, noting that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the trial court's findings were not perverse. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Acquittal Appeal - Customs Act, 1962, Sections 135(1)(a)(i) and 135(1)(b)(i) - Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, Sections 13(2) and 18(1) read with Section 67 - Appeal against acquittal - The State appealed against the acquittal of the accused for smuggling gold and possessing foreign currency without permit. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to contradictions in the evidence of customs officers and panch witnesses, and the accused's statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act was not voluntary. The acquittal was upheld. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the accused for offences under the Customs Act and FERA Act was justified given the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the accused.
Law Points
- Acquittal appeal
- Customs Act
- FERA Act
- burden of proof
- presumption of innocence
- reliability of evidence
- contradictions in prosecution case
