Supreme Court of India
Amad Noormamad Bakali vs The State Of Gujarat on 23 February, 2026
Author: Vikram Nath
Bench: Vikram Nath
2026 INSC 180
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1000 OF 2012
AMAD NOORMAMAD BAKALI ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
& ORS. ….RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1232-1237 OF 2012
JUDGMENT
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. These two appeals arise from common judgment
dated 21st December, 2010 passed by the learned
Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court at
Ahmedabad1 in Criminal Revision Application No.
381, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390 of 2005 whereby,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SONIA BHASIN
Date: 2026.02.23
18:14:30 IST
Reason: 1 Hereinafter being referred to as “High Court”.
1
the revisions preferred by the original accused Nos.
1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 were dismissed and their
conviction for offence punishable under section
135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 was affirmed.
3. The details of revisions preferred by the original
accused persons are noted hereinbelow:
Revision Preferred by
Criminal Revision Amad Noormamad Bakali
Application No. 381 (accused No. 2)
Criminal Revision Aamad Alimamad Paleja
Application No. 385 (accused No. 1)
Criminal Revision Anwarali Abdula Sama
Application No. 386 (accused No. 5)
Criminal Revision Chamanlal Kakubhai
Application No. 387 Thakkar (accused No. 7)
Criminal Revision Ismail Alimamad Paleja
Application No. 388 (accused No. 3)
Criminal Revision Ismail Ibrahim Mandhara
Application No. 389 (accused No. 11)
Criminal Revision Abdul Jumma Mandhara
Application No. 390 (accused No. 6)
Brief Facts: -
4. The case of the prosecution in brief is that secret
intelligence was received by the Customs officers at
Mandvi indicating that prohibited smuggled foreign
wrist watches had been concealed near a fisherman’s
jetty. Specifically, it was reported that two jute sacks
2
containing smuggled wrist watches of foreign brands
such as Seiko, Citizen, and Ricoh were concealed in
two pits located on a newly laid road, opposite to the
Mandvi Gram Panchayat Rest House. Acting on this
intelligence report, on 30th April, 1985 at about 9:00
p.m., Customs officers from Mandvi, accompanied by
two independent panch witnesses, proceeded to the
site and conducted a search. During excavation of the
pits, two jute sacks were recovered. One sack
contained ten packets, while the other contained
seventeen packets. Based on their packaging,
quantity, and nature, the Customs officers formed a
reasonable belief that the contents were smuggled
foreign wrist watches. The seized sacks were then
shifted to the Customs House, Mandvi, where, in the
presence of panch witnesses, they were opened and
examined. Upon close inspection, a total of 777
foreign-made wrist watches and 879 wrist watch
straps were found, with an estimated value of
Rs.2,22,190/-. A seizure panchnama was prepared
on 1st May 1985, and the goods were confiscated
under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, on
the reasonable belief that they had been illegally
imported into India. Further investigation revealed
3
that the seized goods had been smuggled into India
during the first week of February, 1985 aboard the
ship Safina-Tul-Firdaus H.M.V. 643. Accused Nos. 1
and 2 were identified as the owners of the ship, while
accused No. 3 was its captain. Other accused persons
were alleged to have actively participated in
concealing, storing, transporting, selling, or
facilitating the disposal of the smuggled goods. Some
of the accused were found to have kept the smuggled
watches in their custody, while others sold portions
of the goods or retained sale proceeds. Cash amounts
derived from such illegal sales were also seized from
some of the accused persons.
5. The prosecution alleged that all accused
knowingly dealt with smuggled foreign goods, despite
being aware that such goods were liable to
confiscation under law. They intentionally concealed,
transported, sold, or otherwise handled the smuggled
watches, thereby committing the offence punishable
under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. After
obtaining sanction from the Collector of Customs,
Ahmedabad, a criminal complaint was filed on 19th
January, 1987 against 21 accused persons for the
above offence. The trial Court took cognizance and
4
framed charges against the accused persons for
offence punishable under Section 135 (1)(b)(i) of the
Customs Act, 1962. They denied the charges and
were tried.
6. Accused Nos. 4, 8, 18 and 20 were not available
to be tried and hence their trial was separated.
7. Accused Nos. 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19 and A21
were acquitted, whereas, accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7
and 11 were convicted and held guilty by the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhuj-Kachchh2 vide
judgment dated 26th March, 2003 passed in Criminal
Case No. 566 of 87. Each convicted accused was
sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment
along with fine of Rs.2,000/- each, with default
stipulation of eight months rigorous imprisonment.
The period spent by the accused in custody was
ordered to be set off.
8. The convicted accused preferred separate
appeals being Criminal Appeal Nos. 22, 23, 24, 25,
27, 28 and 29 of 2003 against the judgment of trial
Court which came to be dismissed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Bhuj3 vide judgment dated 21st May,
2 Hereinafter being referred to as “trial Court”.
3 Hereinafter being referred to as “appellate Court”.
5
2005, affirming the judgment and order of sentence
dated 26th March, 2003 passed by the trial Court.
9. The appellants preferred separate revisions4
against the dismissal of their criminal appeals which
have been rejected by the High Court vide common
judgment dated 21st December, 2010, which is the
subject matter of challenge in these appeals by
special leave.
Submissions: –
10. Mr. Ravi Panwar, learned counsel representing
the appellant-Amad Noormamad Bakali (accused No.
2) in Criminal Appeal No. 1000 of 2012, was not
present at the time when the matter was taken up for
final hearing. Subsequent to the hearing being
concluded and the judgment having been reserved,
learned counsel moved an application seeking
permission to place written submissions on record.
This Court, while granting permission to file written
submissions, also directed the learned counsel to
furnish relevant information to ascertain the status
of the appellant-Amad Noormamad Bakali being alive
or not. However, upon perusal of the written
4 Referred to in para 3.
6
submissions so tendered, it is observed that the same
predominantly contain arguments on merits
assailing the conviction of the appellant, and no
information regarding the appellant-Amad
Noormamad Bakali being alive or not is provided.
11. The sum and substance of the contentions
advanced by Mr. Panwar is that the conviction of the
appellant-Amad Noormamad Bakali is based solely
on the confessional statement of Hussein Mamad
Bhadala recorded under Section 108 of the Customs
Act, 1962, and in the absence of any independent,
substantive, or corroborative evidence on record
establishing the appellant’s involvement in the
alleged offence, such sole reliance on the said
statement is legally unsustainable and insufficient to
sustain the conviction.
12. Shri Amar Dave, learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos.
1232-1237 of 2012 submitted that during pendency
of the appeals, Aamad Alimamad Paleja (accused No.
1) and Ismail Alimamad Paleja (accused No. 3) have
passed away.
13. Shri Dave urged that the case of the Customs
Department is based on the recovery dated 30th April,
7
1985 wherein, 777 wrist watches and 879 watch
straps of foreign origin recovered from two gunny
bags lying in an abandoned and unclaimed condition
in a pit on a newly laid road opposite to Government
Guest House, Mandvi.
14. He urged that the involvement of the appellants
in this case is based primarily on the confessional
statements of one Hussein Mamad Bhadala recorded
under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. It was
submitted that Hussein Mamad Bhadala, who had
been summoned for inquiry by the Customs
authorities, was subjected to severe custodial torture
during the course of investigation and subsequently
succumbed to the injuries inflicted upon him. In this
regard, an FIR was registered against the concerned
Customs officials for offences punishable under
Sections 330, 302, 323, and 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860.
15. Shri Dave urged that all the appellants before
this Court have already remained in custody for a
considerable period nearing one year during the
pendency of the trial, appeal, and revision before the
High Court, and were subsequently enlarged on bail
by this Court vide order dated 17th February, 2011.
8
16. He urged that though Section 135(1)(b)(i) of the
Customs Act, 1962 as it then stood, carried a
maximum punishment of five years, however, at the
same time, the proviso to the aforesaid provision
gives discretion to the Court to award minimum six
months imprisonment for reasons to be recorded.
Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 (as it then
stood) is extracted hereinbelow:-
“135. Evasion of duty or prohibitions- 1) Without
prejudice to any action that may be taken under
this Act, if any person-
(a) is in relation to any goods in any way
knowingly concerned in misdeclaration of
value or in any fraudulent evasion or
attempt at evasion of any duty chargeable
thereon or of any prohibition for the time
being imposed under this Act or any
other law for the time being in force with
respect to such goods; or
(b) acquires possession of or is in any way
concerned in carrying, removing,
depositing, harbouring, keeping,
concealing, selling or purchasing or in
any other manner dealing with any goods
which he knows or has reason to believe
are liable to confiscation under Section
111, he shall be punishable-
(i) in case of an offence relating to
any of the goods to which section 123
applies and the market price whereof
exceeds one lakh of rupees, with9
imprisonment for a term which may
extend to five years and with fine:
Provided that in absence of
special and adequate reasons to the
contrary to be recorded in the
judgment of the Court, such
imprisonment shall not be for less than
six months;
(ii) in any other case, with
imprisonment for a term which may
extend to two years, or with fine, or
with both.”
17. He thus, urged that the appellants who are now
of advanced age, deserve the indulgence of reduction
of sentence to the term already undergone by them.
18. Per contra, Shri Raja Thakare, learned
Additional Solicitor General appearing for the
respondents opposed the submissions advanced by
the appellants’ counsel. He urged that looking to the
huge smuggling operation in which the appellants
were found indulged, they do not deserve any
leniency on the aspect of sentence.
Findings and Conclusion: –
19. We have given our thoughtful consideration to
the submissions advanced at the bar and have
perused the material placed on record.
10
20. At the outset, it would be apposite to note that
the contention that the conviction of the appellants
could not be founded solely upon the statements
recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act,
1962, was also urged before the High Court in
revision. The High Court, upon a detailed
examination of the statutory framework and the
judicial precedents governing the admissibility and
evidentiary value of such statements, rejected the
said contention. It was observed that statements
recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962
by duly authorized Customs Officers are admissible
in evidence and do not attract the bar contained in
Sections 24, 30, or 34 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872, provided they are made voluntarily.
21. Placing reliance on judgment of this Court in
K.I. Pavunny v. Assistant Collector (HQ), Central
Excise Collectorate, Cochin5, the High Court held
that the object of Section 108 of the Customs Act,
1962 is to empower Customs authorities to collect
relevant information and evidence relating to
contraventions of the Act, and that such statements,
5 (1997) 3 SCC 721
11
if found to be voluntary, are substantive pieces of
evidence capable of being relied upon in support of
the prosecution case.
22. The High Court further noted that the
appellants had failed to establish any material to
demonstrate that the statements under Section 108
of the Customs Act, 1962 were obtained under
coercion, inducement, or threat, and in the absence
of such proof, the statements could not be discarded.
The High Court negated the contention that the
conviction was based solely on the statements
recorded under Section 108, observing that such
statements had led to further discovery of
incriminating material, including contraband articles
and money, duly documented through panchnamas
and corroborated by the testimony of Customs
Officers. It was held that such discoveries and
recoveries constituted independent and relevant
evidence within the meaning of Sections 6, 10, and
11 of the Evidence Act, thereby lending corroborative
support to the statements made under Section 108.
Consequently, it was held that the conviction of
appellants was not based merely on confessional
statements but in addition thereto, the prosecution
12
provided tangible corroborative evidence. Therefore,
the judgment of conviction did not suffer from
perversity or legal infirmity.
23. Having considered the matter in its entirety, we
find ourselves in agreement with the observations
made by the High Court. 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
in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India.
24. Thus, the only question which remains for
consideration at this stage pertains to the quantum
of the sentence imposed, particularly in light of the
surrounding circumstances, the custodial period
already undergone by the appellants, and the
significant lapse of time since the date of the
recovery.
25. In this regard, it is significant to note that Shri
Thakare, learned A.S.G. appearing for respondents
was not in a position to dispute the fact that the
recovery relates to the year 1985, and that the
offending consignment of watches was recovered
13
lying in an abandoned condition. The conviction of
the appellants seems to be primarily based on
confessional statements recorded under Section 108
of the Customs Act, 1962. Conscious possession of
the smuggled goods is not attributed to the
appellants.
26. It is further not in dispute that several co-
accused persons were acquitted by the trial Court.
Some of the appellants before us are reported to have
passed away during the pendency of the present
appeals. The surviving appellants are now of
advanced age and have undergone a substantial
period of incarceration, reportedly around one year,
which is more than the statutory minimum sentence
of six months contemplated under the proviso to
Section 135 (1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 as it
then existed.
27. In this backdrop, considering the totality of
circumstances, including the fact that the incident is
nearly four decades old, the period of incarceration
already undergone by the appellants, the prolonged
pendency of proceedings, and the advanced age of the
surviving appellants, we are of the considered view
that directing the appellants to undergo any further
14
incarceration at this point of time would be unduly
harsh and would not subserve the ends of justice. 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.
28. Accordingly, while affirming the judgment of
conviction dated 26th March, 2003 passed by the trial
Court, we deem it appropriate to reduce the sentence
awarded to the appellants to the period already
undergone by them.
29. Since, the appellants are on bail, they need not
surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged.
30. The appeals are partly allowed in aforesaid
terms.
31. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
….……………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
……………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 23, 2026.
15
