JUDGMENT
R.L. Anand, J.
1. This is a criminal revision and has been directed against the judgment dated 6.8.1988 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar who dismissed the appeal of petitioner by reducing his sentence from two and half years to two years.
2. The facts of the case are as follows:
“On 7.1.1981 a raiding party was arranged by the Customs Staff on the basis of some information. At about noon time the party reached near Ada Bharariwal where three-four persons alongwith an Ambassador car bearing Registration No, DBX 8562 and Royal Eb-Field Motor Cycle No. PUO 7731 were detected. They were found standing in Plot No. 1790/12 and the vehicle referred to above were also parked in the said plot which is under the possession of Rattan Singh and his brother Gurbachan Singh. At the approach of the raiding party, those persons managed to escape. The raiding party chased them but they could not be apprehended. The vehicles i.e. Ambassador car and Royal-En-Field Motor-cycle were subjected to search and it revealed that 8 pieces of silver weighing 8.155 kg. from the left tool box of the motor-cycle alongwith 6 pieces of silver weighing 5.660 kg. and 34.220 kg. of silver, lying concealed under the rear seat of the car, were recovered. The search of a room of nearby house owned by Hazara Mazhbi revealed 6 pieces of silver weighing 53.045 kg. lying in five gunny bags. All these pieces of silver were got tested and weighed and total weight was found to be 101., 080 kg. worth Rs. 3,03,240. All these articles alongwith vehicles were taken into possession under Section 110 of the Customs Act vide seizure memo duly prepared and attested by the witnesses on the spot. Rattan Singh accused and statement before the Investigating admitting his liability and after completing all the formalities and on the receipt of the sanction the complaint was filed”.
3. The conviction has been maintained in view of the reasons given by the learned appellate Court in Paras No. 7 and 8 of its judgment, which are reproduced as under:
“7. To meet this argument, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the words “x” in any way concerned in any manner deals with the prohibited goods” in the clause are of very wide import and it is not desirable or necessary to define the manner of connection with prohibited goods which might come within the meaning of those words. When a person does any contract in relation to prohibited goods which he knows to be such and the act is done in consequence of previous arrangement of agreement he would be doing an act concerned in dealing with prohibited goods. Under Section 135-A of the Act if a person makes preparation to export any goods in contravention of the provisions of this Act and from the circumstances of the case it may be reasonably inferred that if not prevented by the circumstances independent of his will, he is determined to carry out his intention to commit the offence, he is liable to penal action. Reference was also made to Section 138-A of the Act which relates to the presumption of culpable mental state. Under the explanation it mis added that “culpable mental state” includes intention, motive, knowledge of fact and belief is, or reason to believe, a fact. The facts of the present case in hand coupled with the statement of the appellant it cannot be said that he is not connected with the offence charged with or that his case is not covered under the act.
8. It is well settled that Section 24 of the Evidence Act, 1972 is not a bar to admissibility in evidence of statement made by a person to Customs Officer on summons issued under Section 108 of Customs Act because the Customs Officer making enquiry under Section 107 or Section 108 of the Act is not a police officer and person against whom enquiry is made is not an accused person. In this context support is taken from “Percy Rustomji Basta v. The State of Maharashtra AIR 1972 Supreme Court 1224.” As such the statement made by the appellant which is Ex.PB/1 recovered by Inspector Vijay Bahadur Singh PW2 on 14.2.1981 cannot be ignored. The witnesses examined by the complainant have fully supported the case of the prosecution and stood the test of cross-examination. Thus, the statements of these witnesses coupled with the confessional statement of the accused Ex.PB/1 are sufficient to make out a case against the accused. The trial Court has rightly held him guilty and hence the conviction is maintained”.
4. No. assistance has been given by the side of the petitioner. Of course, I have gone, through the grounds of revision and in my opinion, the reasons given by the Courts below in maintaining the conviction are correct.
5. The statement made by a person before the Customs Officer is not hit by Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, It is established on the record that the petitioner was carrying 8 pieces of silver weighing, 8.155 kgs. and it was found lying in the left tool box of the motor bicycle. Apart from that, 6 pieces of silver weighing 5.660 kg. and 34.220 kg. of silver, were lying consealed under the rear seat of the car. Further silver was recovered weighing 53.045 kgs in the gunny bags. The total weight of the silver was 101.080 kg. worth Rs. 3,03,240.
6. The charge against the petitioner stands proved from the statement of Inspector Vijay Bahadur Singh PW-2 who recorded statement Ex.PB/1 of the petitioner on 14.2.1981. They have no axe to grind against the petitioner and it cannot be said that they would plant the huge quantity of silver from their personal resources. The incident took place in January 1981. The petitioner Shri Rattan Singh is facing vagaries of the criminal proceedings for the last more than 20 years, therefore, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice will suffice if the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner is further reduced to one year. I order accordingly.
7. With this modification in the matter of sentence, revision stands disposed of.