Case Note & Summary
The case arises from an appeal by the Union of India against the acquittal of the respondent, Harish Muljimal Gandhi, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Goa, Margao, in Criminal Case No. 1/C/2005/A. The respondent was charged with an offence punishable under Section 135(1)(c)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. The facts are that on 14 July 2003, at about 14:00 hours, the respondent, accompanied by two ladies, Smt. Shobha Khira and Ms. Tina Khira, had checked in to board an Indian Airlines flight to Sharjah. Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, having received prior information, intercepted the respondent and the two ladies. Upon interrogation, it was found that they had already checked in their baggage but were also carrying hand bags as cabin baggage. A search of the checked and cabin baggage revealed foreign currencies in the respondent's bag. A personal search of the respondent also found some foreign currency in his wallet. The prosecution alleged that the respondent was attempting to export the foreign currency in contravention of the Customs Act. The trial court acquitted the respondent, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the essential ingredient of mens rea, i.e., the intention to evade duty or prohibition. The High Court, in appeal, examined the evidence and found that the trial court's conclusion was not perverse. The court noted that the prosecution did not establish that the respondent knew the currency was liable to confiscation or that he intended to evade duty. The mere possession of foreign currency, without more, was insufficient to prove the offence. The High Court, therefore, dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Customs Act - Offence under Section 135(1)(c)(ii) - Mens Rea - The prosecution must prove that the accused had the intention to evade duty or prohibition; mere possession of foreign currency without more is insufficient to establish guilt. The court upheld the acquittal as the evidence did not show that the respondent knew the currency was liable to confiscation or that he intended to evade duty. (Paras 2-5) B) Evidence - Burden of Proof - Customs Act - The burden lies on the prosecution to prove all ingredients of the offence, including mens rea. The trial court's finding that the prosecution failed to discharge this burden was not perverse and did not warrant interference in appeal. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent's acquittal under Section 135(1)(c)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 was correct given the seizure of foreign currency and the absence of proof of intent to evade duty.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the respondent under Section 135(1)(c)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962.
Law Points
- Mens rea essential for conviction under Section 135(1)(c)(ii) of Customs Act
- 1962
- Burden of proof on prosecution to establish guilty knowledge
- Acquittal justified when evidence does not prove intent to evade duty
