Case Details: Amad Noormamad Bakali vs. State of Gujarat (2026) 39 Centax 402 (S.C.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Vikram Nath & Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
- S/Shri Amar Dave, Sr. Advocate, Rishi Maheshwari, Ms Anne Mathew, Bharat Sood, Jai Govind M.J., Jashan Vir Singh, Yadunandan Bansal, Advocates & Ravi Panwar & P.S. Sudheer, AOR, for the Petitioner.
- Ms Swati Ghildiyal, Ms Deepanwita Priyanka & Shri Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The accused were involved in smuggling of foreign brand wrist watches and straps. The goods were recovered from a fisherman’s jetty based on the information received by the Customs officers. The accused were convicted by the trial court under Section 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. The conviction was based on the confessional statements recorded by the accused, and the accused were sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment. The accused preferred an appeal to the Gujarat High Court, but the appeal was dismissed. The accused then approached the Supreme Court of India.
Supreme Court Held
The Supreme Court held that the conviction of the accused was based on the confessional statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, conscious possession of the smuggled goods was not attributed to the accused. It is further not in dispute that several co-accused persons were acquitted by the trial Court. Some of the appellants before us are reported to have passed away during the pendency of the present appeals. The surviving accused were of advanced age and had undergone a substantial period of incarceration, reportedly around one year, which is more than the statutory minimum sentence of six months contemplated under the proviso to Section 135 (1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 as it then existed. Considering the totality of circumstances, including the fact that the incident is nearly four decades old, the period of incarceration already undergone by the appellants, the prolonged pendency of proceedings, and the advanced age of the surviving accused, the Supreme Court held that directing the appellants to undergo any further incarceration at this point of time would be unduly harsh and would not subserve the ends of justice. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the ends of justice would be served by reducing the sentence to the term already undergone by the appellants.
List of Cases Reviewed
- K.I. Pavunny v. Assistant Collector (HQ) — 1997 (90) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.) — Referred [Paras 21]
