Decided on-: 4th March 1980
Bench: Hon’ble Justice R.S. Sarkaria; Hon’ble Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy
FACTS
Based on classified intelligence, Customs Department was alerted about impending illegal transportation of silver via a Jeep (MRC 9930) and a Truck (BMS 796) from Mumbai to a desolate coastal area near Bassein. Superintendent Wagh and Inspector Dharap, along with staff, surveilled National Highway No. 8 on September 14, 1968, spotting the suspect vehicles en-route to Bassein.
The vehicles diverted towards Kaman village from Bassein's route, stopping at a bridge to unload bundles. Customs officials seized the suspects—Jeep owner, drivers, and cleaner—while discovering four silver ingots nearby. They also heard signals from a nearby vessel.
Jeep's owner, posing as Mohammed Yusuf, possessed a pistol, knife, and cash. Further search revealed 39 concealed silver ingots in a shawl and dust bags. Legal procedures were followed during questioning in Bassein. Confiscated items prove the illegal trafficking. The Customs Department remains committed to preventing contraband trafficking and upholding the law.
ISSUES
The pivotal question arising from the presented facts and circumstances is whether, beyond a reasonable doubt, it can be inferred that the accused made a concerted effort to unlawfully export silver in contravention of Indian law. Subsequent to the events, the state of Maharashtra has lodged an appeal in the Supreme Court, seeking legal resolution and adjudication on the matter.
RATION DECIDENDI
Justice Sarkaria defines attempt in line with the Abhayanand Mishra case: an attempt occurs when an individual intends to commit an offense, prepares for it, and takes a step toward its commission. In this case, the accused's actions, like concealing and unloading silver near the creek, indicated an attempt to smuggle. He supports their conviction under the Customs Act and Import-Export Control Act.
Justice Reddy distinguishes preparation from perpetration, stating an attempt needs intention, acts toward the offense, and proximity to the intended result. He rejects the narrow view that allows a change of mind to negate an attempt, establishing three elements for attempt. He concurs that the accused's actions qualify as an attempt to smuggle. The appeal is allowed, setting aside the High Court's order.
JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court corrected the High Court's error in assessing trial and session court judgments. It clarified that Section 3 of the Evidence Act treats all evidence equally, including circumstantial evidence. The Court applied this principle, finding clear evidence of the accused's intent to export silver. They were caught concealing silver and stopping deliberately in a coastal area, suggesting a clandestine export plan. Consequently, the Court overturned the acquittal, convicting the accused under Customs Act Section 135(a) and Imports and Exports Control Act Section 5. The highest judicial authority affirmed their guilt for attempting to export silver.
Comments