Amad Noormamad Bakali Vs State of Gujarat & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)
The Supreme Court considered appeals arising from a common judgment of the Gujarat High Court affirming the conviction of several accused under Section 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. The prosecution case stemmed from a 1985 recovery of 777 foreign-made wrist watches and 879 watch straps concealed in pits near Mandvi. The goods, valued at Rs. 2,22,190/-, were allegedly smuggled into India aboard a vessel, and multiple accused were charged with knowingly dealing in goods liable to confiscation. The trial court convicted certain accused and sentenced them to three years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine; the conviction was upheld by the appellate court and High Court.
Before the Supreme Court, the principal contention was that conviction could not rest solely on statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The Court noted the High Court’s reliance on precedent holding that voluntary statements under Section 108 are admissible and constitute substantive evidence, not barred by the Evidence Act, if made voluntarily. The High Court had found no proof of coercion and observed that the statements led to discovery of incriminating material and cash, corroborated through panchnamas and testimony.
