Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Eliyad Abdulla Bholim, was tried for offences punishable under Sections 135(1)(a)(i) and 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai, by decision dated 10th August 1990, convicted the applicant based on overwhelming evidence indicating his complicity in the crime. The applicant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 18 months and a fine of Rs.15,000/-, with default sentences. Co-accused Nos. 2 and 3 were acquitted. The applicant appealed to the Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai (Criminal Appeal No. 151 of 1990), which was dismissed by judgment and order dated 5th May 1992, affirming the trial court's view. The Sessions Court reappreciated the evidence and reached the same findings of fact. The applicant then filed the present criminal revision application before the High Court. The High Court, after hearing counsel and perusing the judgments under challenge, found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact. The court noted that the trial court and appellate court had correctly appreciated the evidence and the findings were not perverse or illegal. Accordingly, the revision application was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Customs Act - Possession of Contraband - Sections 135(1)(a)(i) and 135(1)(b)(i) of Customs Act, 1962 - The applicant was convicted for possession of smuggled gold. The trial court and appellate court concurrently found overwhelming evidence of possession. The High Court in revision declined to interfere as findings were not perverse or illegal. (Paras 1-3)
B) Criminal Procedure - Revision - Scope of Revision - Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The High Court held that in revision, it cannot reappreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse or illegal. The concurrent findings of fact were upheld. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the applicant under Sections 135(1)(a)(i) and 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 is sustainable in law and on facts.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision application, upholding the conviction and sentence.
Law Points
- Possession of contraband goods
- burden of proof on accused under Customs Act
- concurrent findings of fact
- scope of revision limited to perversity or illegality
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (02) 259
Criminal Revision Application No.119 of 1992
Mr. Madhu M. Patel for the Applicant, Mr. J.C. Satpute for Respondent No. 1, Mr. B.H. Mehta, A.P.P. for Respondent No. 2
Asstt.Collector of Customs, New Bombay and another
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision application against conviction under Customs Act and Imports and Exports (Control) Act.
Remedy Sought
The applicant sought to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court.
Filing Reason
The applicant was convicted for possession of smuggled gold and challenged the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
Previous Decisions
The trial court convicted the applicant on 10th August 1990; the Sessions Court dismissed the appeal on 5th May 1992.
Issues
Whether the conviction under Sections 135(1)(a)(i) and 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 is sustainable.
Whether the High Court in revision should interfere with concurrent findings of fact.
Submissions/Arguments
The applicant argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove possession of contraband.
The respondents supported the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court held that in revision, it cannot reappreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse or illegal. The concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and appellate court were based on overwhelming evidence and were not perverse, hence no interference was warranted.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai, by decision dated 10th August 1990, after considering the evidence on record, convicted the Applicant - accused No.1, for the offence for which he was tried, in view of the overwhelming evidence to indicate the complicity of the Applicant in the commission of the crime.
The Sessions Court, in its well-considered judgment, has reappreciated the evidence on record and reached at the same findings of facts as noted by the trial Court against the Applicant - accused No.1.
Procedural History
The applicant was convicted by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai on 10th August 1990. He appealed to the Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai (Criminal Appeal No. 151 of 1990), which was dismissed on 5th May 1992. The applicant then filed Criminal Revision Application No.119 of 1992 before the High Court, which was dismissed on 15th February 2005.
Acts & Sections
- Customs Act, 1962: 135(1)(a)(i), 135(1)(b)(i)
- Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947: 5
