Gold Smuggling Case Falls Apart | Delhi HC Upholds Acquittal Citing 'No Evidence Of Recovery' And 'Witnesses Made To Sign Prewritten Statements
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed an appeal filed under Section 378(iv) of the Cr.P.C., affirming the acquittal of the respondent in a case under Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the recovery of contraband gold from the accused beyond reasonable doubt and observed that there was no infirmity in the acquittal order passed by the trial court. Accordingly, the court upheld the judgment of the learned ACMM and directed that the appeal be dismissed with all pending applications disposed of.
The case arose from an incident dated 20.01.1994, wherein officers of Air Customs at IGI Airport, New Delhi, acting on specific information, discovered a packet wrapped in brown plastic adhesive tape under the wash-basin in the toilet for handicapped persons in the Arrival Immigration Hall. The packet was found to contain 24 gold biscuits with Swiss markings, collectively weighing 2.819 kg. A Delhi Police constable, the respondent in the appeal, was allegedly found near the toilet and was said to have attempted to flee upon seeing the customs officers.
The customs officers apprehended the respondent, and a subsequent personal search allegedly resulted in the recovery of a cloth belt with a stitched pocket from his waist. According to the prosecution, this belt was meant to conceal the contraband. The respondent was also found in possession of Rs.200 and six US dollars. A goldsmith later assessed the yellow metal and issued a certificate of purity.
The respondent gave a statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, admitting to having picked up the packet from the toilet and being tasked with delivering it to one Bhagirath, who was reportedly waiting outside. However, neither Bhagirath nor any vehicle could be traced during the follow-up inquiry. The respondent was exonerated in departmental proceedings prior to the criminal trial.
The prosecution examined nine witnesses. PW4, a sweeper who first noticed the packet, was declared hostile and denied witnessing the respondent at the scene. Panch witnesses PW8 and PW9 also turned hostile, asserting they had signed pre-written documents at the request of customs officers.
PW1 proved the sanction and authorization. PW2 corroborated the search, recovery, and seizure. PW3 confirmed that the respondent's statement was made voluntarily. PW5 stated she was present when PW4's statement was recorded. PW6, the goldsmith, testified to the purity of the seized gold, though admitted he only conducted a surface test. PW7 was the customs officer who intercepted the respondent during the alleged escape attempt.
The respondent denied all allegations and claimed he was falsely implicated after intervening in a dispute involving PW4. He presented a witness from the Revenue Department who confirmed that he had been exonerated in internal proceedings.
The learned ACMM, by judgment dated 11.07.2006, acquitted the respondent, leading to the appeal by the customs department.
The High Court scrutinized the prosecution’s evidence and noted the contradictions and weaknesses that undermined the case. It recorded: "PW4 Smt. Sudesh admitted her signatures on the Panchnama Ex.PW2/A, but denied its contents. She also denied that she had identified said person in the presence of the Customs Officers."
Regarding the credibility of independent witnesses, the Court noted: "PW8 Sh. Mohinder Singh and PW9 Sh. Ram Chander...deposed that they had been called by the Custom officers for getting their signatures on some papers, which were already prepared."
The court also took note of the absence of evidence linking the respondent directly to the packet found: "The testimony of PW3, therefore, establishes the recovery of the packet from under the wash basin, but does not implicate the Respondent in any manner."
On the confession under Section 108 of the Customs Act, the Court stated: "The truthfulness of the Statement...could have been fully tested either by recovery of the vehicle, the number of which was disclosed by the Respondent or by tracing Bhagirath...Clearly, no investigations on this aspect were conducted."
The assessment of the gold's authenticity was also questioned. The Court recorded: "PW6...admitted that in this method, he cannot state with surety what was inside the gold biscuit and the purity was tested only of the surface."
In sum, the Court noted that the trial court had appropriately assessed all evidence and extended the benefit of doubt to the respondent.
The High Court of Delhi concluded the matter by explicitly affirming the trial court’s decision. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna stated: "There is no infirmity in the impugned Judgement and the Appeal is hereby, dismissed. Pending Applications are accordingly, disposed of."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Senior Standing Counsel
For the Respondent: Mr. S.K. Srivastava, Ms. Shubhi Srivastava, Mr. Prince Kumar & Ms. Garima Singh, Advocates
Case Title: AIR Customs vs. Ram Chander
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:4584
Case Number: CRL.A. 192/2012
Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
[Read/Download order]
