MARCELIN SABESTIAN CARVELLO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by persons arraigned as accused No. 5, 17, and 20 takes exception to the conviction and sentence recorded against them for their allegedly committing offences punishable under Sections 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and 135 (b) (i) of the Customs Act, 1962.

(2.) THE case against the appellants, shortly stated is that being aware of smuggling operations being carried on by various persons, they permitted the use of their godown for the purposes of storage of contraband consisting of metallic yarn, synthetic yarn and synthetic fabrics etc. Appellants are full brothers and were doing business in the name and style of 'cyril Wilson and co. ' at Belgaum in the State of Karnataka. Pursuant to the discovery of the smuggling activities being carried on by the three brothers and their co-conspirators, the Customs Authorities apprehended the culprits. In the course of the investigation carried on by the Customs authorities, statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. In these statements, written by the appellants in their own handwritings, they made a clean breast of their participation in smuggling activities. Along with their co-conspirators appellants were put up for trial and at the trial the appellants retracted the statements made under Section 108 of the Customs Act. Their contention was that the Customs Authorities had virtually dictated what they had to write down with their own hands. Having been coerced, there was no alternative open to them but to heed the directions given to them. They were not guilty and deserved to be acquitted.

(3.) AT the trial almost the entire evidence adduced against the appellants consisted of the Section 108 Customs Act statements made by them before a Custom Officer known as Mr. Amarnani. The learned Magistrate held that the statements were voluntary and unerringly pointed to the participation of the appellants in a criminal conspiracy to aid and abet smuggling. He negatived the defence that appellants had been forced into giving confessional statements. The appellants were convicted under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 (b) (i) of the customs Act, 1962. The sentence imposed on accused Nos. 17 and 20 was R. I. for one year and a fine of Rs. 300/- on each count. Failure to pay the fine was to entail additional R. I. for two months per default. The substantive sentences were to run concurrently. The conviction and sentence recorded against accused No. 5 need not detain us, for after availing of bail pending appeal, the said accused has expired, with the result, that the appeal in so far as he is concerned, stands abated.