Conviction under Section 135 Customs Act Can Rest on Voluntary Section 108 Statements; Sentence Reduced Due to Passage of Time

Case Name: Amad Noormamad Bakali v. The State of Gujarat & Ors. (with connected Criminal Appeal Nos. 1232–1237 of 2012)
Citation: 2026 INSC 180; Criminal Appeal No. 1000 of 2012
Date of Judgment/Order: 23 February 2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta

Held: The Supreme Court held that statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 by authorized Customs Officers are admissible in evidence and can form the basis of conviction if found to be voluntary and corroborated by surrounding circumstances. Such statements do not attract the bar under Sections 24, 30 or 34 of the Evidence Act when not shown to be obtained by coercion. Where concurrent findings of guilt are recorded by the trial court, appellate court, and High Court, interference under Article 136 is unwarranted absent perversity. However, in cases involving long lapse of time, advanced age of the accused, partial acquittals of co-accused, and substantial incarceration already undergone, the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone in the interest of justice.

Summary: Customs officers at Mandvi, acting on secret intelligence on 30 April 1985, recovered two jute sacks concealed near a fisherman’s jetty containing 777 foreign wrist watches and 879 straps valued at Rs. 2,22,190/-. Investigation revealed that the goods were smuggled aboard a vessel and that several accused persons were involved in concealing, transporting and disposing of the contraband. After sanction, a complaint was filed in 1987 under Section 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act. The trial court convicted seven accused persons in 2003 and sentenced each to three years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine. Appeals and revisions were dismissed by the appellate court and the Gujarat High Court. Before the Supreme Court, the principal contention was that conviction rested solely on confessional statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, particularly of one Hussein Mamad Bhadala, and that such reliance was legally unsustainable. It was further urged that the incident was nearly four decades old, some accused had died, several co-accused were acquitted, and the surviving appellants had already undergone around one year of incarceration. The Court examined the High Court’s reliance on K.I. Pavunny v. Assistant Collector (HQ), Central Excise Collectorate, Cochin and held that voluntary statements under Section 108 are substantive evidence and, in the present case, were corroborated by recoveries and documentary material.

Decision: The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the appellants under Section 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, considering the lapse of nearly four decades, advanced age of surviving appellants, acquittal of several co-accused, and substantial incarceration already suffered. The appellants, being on bail, were not required to surrender and their bail bonds were discharged. The appeals were partly allowed to the limited extent of modification of sentence, and pending applications were disposed of.