The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of seven people for smuggling foreign wrist watches through sea into Gujarat 40 years ago, but reduced their three-year sentence to the period already served.
A bench of justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta on Monday noted the lapse of time, the advanced age of the seven, and that two of them had died during the pendency. “In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, ends of justice would be served by reducing the sentence to the term already undergone by the appellants.”
The appellants served nearly one year of their sentence, which is more than the minimum of six months under Section 135 (1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, under which they were convicted in March 2003. The Gujarat high court in December 2010 upheld the sentence.
The convicts were booked based on intelligence, indicating that prohibited, smuggled foreign wrist watches had been concealed near a fisherman’s jetty at Mandvi. A search that followed led to the recovery of 777 foreign-made wrist watches and 879 wrist watch straps, estimated to be worth ₹2.22 lakh in April 1985.
Justice Mehta, who wrote the judgment, cited the totality of circumstances. “...we are of the considered view 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.”
{{/usCountry}}Justice Mehta, who wrote the judgment, cited the totality of circumstances. “...we are of the considered view 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.”
{{/usCountry}}The customs said that the seized goods were smuggled into India through a ship, whose two owners and a captain were convicted. Other convicts concealed, stored, transported, sold, or facilitated the disposal of the smuggled goods.
The complaint in the case was filed in January 1987 against 21 accused, of whom seven were sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and fined ₹2,000 each. The convicts claimed that the recovery was based on a confessional statement. But the high court and the Supreme Court found tangible corroborative evidence.
“The findings of guilt recorded by the trial court, which stand concurrently affirmed by the appellate court as well as the high court, do not suffer from any perversity, illegality, or manifest error warranting interference by this court,” the Supreme Court said.