Delhi High Court
Union Of India vs Hemant Kumar Ishwar Dass Singhvi on 20 May, 2026
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 28th October, 2025
Pronounced on: 20th May, 2026
+ CRL.A.1503/2025
UNION OF INDIA
Through the Department of Customs,
Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Law),
IGI Airport, New Delhi. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pramod Bahuguna, SPP with
Ms. Yachi and Ms. Debora Daimari,
Advocates.
versus
HEMANT KUMAR ISHWAR DASS SINGHVI
S/o Shri Ishwar Das Madan Lai Singhvi,
R/o 32, Naroain Dabholkar Road, Flat No.1402,
Behhur Apartments, Mumbai. .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Aishwarya Dwivedi, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. The present Petition under Section 378 (v) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) for Special Leave to Appeal against the Judgment
of acquittal dated 26.09.2018 passed by learned CMM, New Delhi,
punishable for the offences Under Section 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs
Act,1962, C.C.No.19115/19 has been preferred.
2. Appeal under Section 378(1) of Cr.P.C has been filed on behalf of the
Appellant challenging the Judgment dated 26.09.2018 whereby the learned
Signature Not Verified CRL.A.1503/2025 Page 1 of 14
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:20.05.2026
17:39:58
ACMM, New Delhi has acquitted the Respondent in Complaint Case under
Section 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to
as the Act).
3. The prosecution/Appellant had filed a Criminal Complaint No.
19115/19.against the Respondent, Hemant Kumar Ishwar Das Singhvi,
under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. The case of the Prosecution in brief, is that on 11.02.1991, the
Respondent arrived at IGI Airport, New Delhi from London by flight
No.BA-147 and was intercepted on suspicion, by the Customs Officer. On
his personal search, gold biscuits weighing 3496.400 Grams, having value of
Rs.12,23,470/- (present value approximately Rs.1,39,00,000/-) were
recovered, which he concealed in his waist belt, having 15 pouches (two
biscuits in each pouch). He was arrested by the Customs officer and
thereafter, produced in the Court, where he was remanded to judicial
custody.
5. On 15.02.1991, after conclusion of investigations, the Complaint was
filed against the Respondent by the Customs Officer for offence punishable
under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Act.
6. The learned ACMM, New Delhi took cognizance on the Complaint, on
25.02.1991.
7. The Prosecution examined three pre-charge witnesses. PW-1 Sh. R.
C. Mahajan, Superintendent, has proved the voluntary statement of
Respondent under Section 108 of the Act, 1962, as Ex. PW-1/A.
8. PW-2 Sh. M. S. Manjunath, Customs Officer, has proved the
Complaint Ex. PW-2/A; sanction and authorization accorded under Section
Signature Not Verified CRL.A.1503/2025 Page 2 of 14
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:20.05.2026
17:39:58
137 of the Act Ex.PW-2/B; Certificate issued by Gold Smith Ex.PW-2/C;
Panchnama Ex.PW-2/D; travel documents Ex.PW-2/E1 to E5; Application
under Section 110(1)(B) of the Act; Ex.PW-2/F, proceedings under Section
110(1)(B) of the Act; Ex.PW-2/H, paper slip Ex.PW-2/J. Concealing
materials, i.e. Belt Ex.-P1 and adhesive tape, are Ex.-P2.
9. PW-3 Kuldeep Sugandh, Gold Smith, had examined recovered metal,
which was gold and issued purity Certificate Ex. PW-2/C.
10. Thereafter, charges were framed under Sections 132 and
135(1)(a) of Customs Act, 1962, to which the Responded pleaded not
guilty.
11. During pendency of the trial, an Application under Sections 110(1A),
(1B) and (1C) of Customs Act, 1962, for early disposal of the Gold / case
property, was filed before learned ACMM, which was assigned to learned
MM for disposal. The case property was produced by learned MM and
inventory i.e. Panchnama, was certified as correct.
12. Thereafter, PW-3 Kuldeep Sugandh was recalled for cross-
examination on 18.01.2002.
13. Statement of Respondent was recorded under Section 313
Cr.P.C. on 06.01.2003, wherein Resopndent denied all the incriminating
evidence put to him.
14. He, examined himself as DW-1, in his defence.
15. During trial, Respondent moved an Application under Section 137 of
Customs Act, 1962 for compounding of the offence, but the same was
dismissed on the ground that Respondent had not made full and true
disclosure of the facts of case.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A.1503/2025 Page 3 of 14
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:20.05.2026
17:39:58
16. Thereafter, Respondent stopped appearing and exemptions from
personal appearance were sought from 04.09.2003 till 24.05.2004.
Thereafter, non-bailable warrants were issued against him, which remained
unexecuted. Process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued on 25.09.2006,
which was followed by process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. Thereafter,
Respondent was declared Proclaimed Offender, on 13.09.2012.
17. On 17.12.2013, Respondent again moved an Application for pleading
guilty, but failed to appear. Thereafter, he appeared only on 28.10.2014,
after 12 years, after he had been declared Proclaimed Offender. He then,
applied for plea bargaining, but that also did not succeed.
18. Learned MM, after hearing final arguments, acquitted the Respondent
vide Judgment dated 26.09.2018.
19. Aggrieved by the acquittal, Union of India has filed the present
Appeal. The grounds of challenge that it has not been appreciated that the
connotation of the word „made‟ under Section 132 of the Customs Act,
1962, herein includes “oral declaration” that the was carrying Gold on his
person, as required under Section 77 of the Customs Act, 1962, to the
concerned officer for the purpose of clearing it.
20. The Respondent has also been wrongly acquitted for the offence
under Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, as the learned Trial Court
has decided the case on incorrect footing, by observing that it was a case of
attempt to export, when in fact, it was a case of import. It has also not been
appreciated that in terms of the Government Notification dated 23.12.1997,
Application under Sections 110(1A), (1B) and (1C) of the Customs Act,
1962, was modified for early disposal of the case property, i.e. Gold.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A.1503/2025 Page 4 of 14
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:20.05.2026
17:39:58
21. Learned MM had given due notice to the Resopndent and conducted
the proceedings Ex.PW-2/G. Case property, i.e. Gold, was produced before
learned MM and inventory i.e. Panchnama was certified as correct.
Respondent never disputed the recovery of Gold or the proceedings Ex.PW-
2/G, despite which the learned Trial Court has given benefit of non-
production of the case property during trial, to the Resopndent. The
proceedings under Sections 110(1A), (1B) and (1C) of the Customs Act,
1962, were wrongly held to be erroneous, since the learned MM was never a
witness of prosecution and had conducted the procedure, in terms of the
Government Notification.
22. The testimony of PW-3 Kuldeep Sugandh, Gold Smith, has also not
been appreciated in the right perspective, who had appraised the Gold in its
purity, weight and value and had issued Certificate of Purity. Learned Trial
Court failed to consider that the Respondent had neither disputed the Gold
nor had cross-examined PW-3 Kuldeep Sugandh, on his qualifications.
23. Likewise, the finding that no public witness had been associated with
the recovery is incorrect, as Panchnana Ex.PW-1/D was self-explanatory,
which reflects that it had been drawn in presence of two public witnesses.
Further, error was committed in presuming and giving benefit to the
Respondent that Belt Ex. P-1 which the Respondent was wearing, may not
the same since the record of concerned Department has not been produced,
despite the fact that Respondent/accused never disputed it during evidence.
Moreover, contraband in this case, is Gold and not belt.
24. It is further asserted that learned Trial Court incorrectly observed that
no evidence has been produced to show that the accused had travelled in
Signature Not Verified CRL.A.1503/2025 Page 5 of 14
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:20.05.2026
17:39:58
Flight No.BA-147, even though the documentary evidence i.e. boarding pass
issued to the Respondent by Air Lines and other travel documents were
recovered from his possession, which had been proved on record. Moreover,
red-handed arrest of the Respondent at the Airport at the relevant time on the
given date, is strong evidence, which has not been disputed by Respondent.
25. Vital piece of evidence i.e. the statement of the Respondent under
Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, Ex.PW-1/A, has also not been
considered. The Respondent admitted that Statement Ex.PW-1/A was in his
hand-writing and had his signatures. It is well-settled law that the statement
made before the Customs Officer, is admissible in evidence and can be
treated as extra-judicial confession and the accused could be convicted
solely on the basis of said statement.
26. It has not been appreciated that under the Customs Act, a statutory
presumption of culpable mental state on the part of the Resopndent should
have been drawn in favour of the prosecution, in terms of Section 138A of
Customs Act.
27. Respondent had taken contradictory defence in his Bail Application,
in cross-examination of prosecution witnesses and suggestions put to the
witnesses. In the Statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the
Resopndent claimed that he has been falsely implicated in this case on
account of altercation on the question of payment of duty and evaluation of
goods with the Customs Officer, while he had made true declaration of the
goods.
28. Complaint was filed by the Public Servant in discharge of his official
duties and by no stretch of imagination recovered Gold in such huge
Signature Not Verified CRL.A.1503/2025 Page 6 of 14
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:20.05.2026
17:39:58
quantity, could be presumed to have been planted upon the Respondent.
There was no previous enmity with the Respondent and there was no basis
to assume that Customs Officers would falsely implicate the Respondent.
29. A Prayer is therefore, made that impugned Judgment dated
26.09.2018 be set aside and the Respondent be convicted.
30. Detailed Reply has been filed on behalf of the Respondent,
wherein it is submitted that the Department has cheated the Respondent,
who is a 71 years old person, having severe cardiac issues. Furthermore,
present Petition is filed after expiry of limitation period, as the judgment was
pronounced on 26.09.2018, while the Special Leave Petition was filed on
23.09.2019 i.e. after 01 year. Section 378(v) of Cr.P.C. specifically states
that „no Application under sub-Section (4) for grant of special leave to
Appeal from an Order of acquittal shall be entertained by the High Court
after the expiry of six months, where the Complainant is a public servant
and sixty days in every other case, computed from the date of Order of
acquittal.
31. On merits, it is submitted that the learned Trial Court has rightly
observed that Respondent had no intention to smuggle the Gold, but he
wanted to declare the same in Red channel, but had been apprehended much
prior to that and taken to the room, where his involuntary statement was
recorded. The Respondent had already declared the Gold at British Airport
and paid VAT, as has been deposed by him in his defence.
32. It has been rightly held by learned Trial Court that PW-3 Gold Smith
was not having the expertise for measuring the purity of Gold. Moreover, no
qualifications of the witness were proved to this effect.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A.1503/2025 Page 7 of 14
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:20.05.2026
17:39:58
33. It is therefore, submitted that present Appeal is without merit and is
liable to be dismissed.
34. Union of India in its Rejoinder has reiterated the submissions made
in the Appeal.
Submissions heard and record perused.
35. The case of the Prosecution is that Respondent failed to declare 30
Gold biscuits of 24 Karat purity, weighing 3496.400 Grams, having value of
Rs.12,23,470/-, which were recovered from his possession after arriving at
IGI Airport, Delhi from London by British Airways Flight on 11.02.1991
and were seized. He thereby, committed an offence under Section 132 of the
Act.
36. To understand if any offence under S. 132 was committed, it is
reproduced as under:
“132. False declaration, false documents, etc.–Whoever
makes, signs or uses, or causes to be made, signed or used,
any declaration, statement or document in the transaction of
any business relating to the customs, knowing or having
reason to believe that such declaration, statement or
document is false in any material particular, shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend
to 1 [two years], or with fine, or with both.”
37. Section 132 of Customs Act therefore, makes a false declaration
statement or documents etc. relating to customs, knowing it to be false, is an
offence punishable for imprisonment for a term, which may extent to two
years.
38. It was also asserted that he knowingly was involved in fraudulent
evasion / attempt at evasion of the prohibition imposed on the import of
Signature Not Verified CRL.A.1503/2025 Page 8 of 14
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:20.05.2026
17:39:58
Gold and thereby committed offence under Section 135(1)(a) of Customs
Act, 1962. Section 135 of Customs Act deals with evasion of duty or
prohibitions, its relevant part read as under:
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 or
Section 113, as the case may be; or
(c) attempts to export any goods which he knows or has
reason to believe are liable to confiscation under Section
113; or
(d) fraudulently avails of or attempts to avail of drawback
or any exemption from duty provided under this Act in
connection with export of goods,
he shall be punishable, ………..”
39. The facts of the present case may thus, be considered to ascertain if
the Prosecution was successful in proving the offence under Sections
132/135 of the Act, 1962.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A.1503/2025 Page 9 of 14
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:20.05.2026
17:39:58
40. The most material witness examined is PW-2 Sh. M. S. Manjunath,
Air Customs Officer, IO, DRI, who deposed that on 11.02.1991, Respondent
arrived at IGI Airport, New Delhi from London by Flight No.BA-147 and
after completing immigration formalities, he came to Customs Arrival
Hall. He was stopped and enquired if he had any Gold, Silver, watches etc.
on his person or in his baggage, to which he replied in negative. Then two
independent witnesses were called. The accused was taken inside the Arrival
Hall, and in presence of the two witnesses, his personal search was
conducted by hands as well as by metal detector, which gave falsity
indication of presence of some metallic substance in the waist portion of the
Respondent.
41. On checking, it was found that he was wearing a waist belt under his
pants and underwear, which had 16 pouches and 15 of them were closed
with adhesive tape, on one side. On removing the adhesive tape from 15
pouches, they were found to contain two pieces of yellow metal each. They
were taken out and were 30 in number.
42. A Certified Goldsmith (PW-3) was called to test these recovered
pieces of yellow metal. He gave a Certificate Ex.PW-1/C certifying that the
purity of the Gold biscuits was found to be 24 Karats weighing 3496.400
Grams, valued at Rs.12,23,470/-. The Certificate was proved by PW-3
Kuldeep Suagandh, Goldsmith.
43. PW-2 further deposed that on demand, accused failed to produce any
documentary evidence for lawful import of the recovered Gold, which was
then seized vide Memo Ex.PW-1/D, in the presence of two witnesses. A
panchnama was prepared Ex.PW-2/D, two Air Tickets, Boarding Card, four
Signature Not Verified CRL.A.1503/2025 Page 10 of 14
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:20.05.2026
17:39:58
Custom Clearance Card Ex.PW-2/E1 to E5, were also seized in the presence
of those two witnesses.
44. PW-2 in his cross-examination, explained that after the Immigration
clearance, the passenger is required to get the Customs Clearance. For this
the prescribed procedure was that there is one Red Channel and one Green
Channel. Admittedly, PW-2 intercepted the Respondent immediately after
immigration clearance, when he was found carrying three check-in baggage
and two hand baggage.
45. From the testimony of PW-2 and his admission, it is evident that it is
after the Immigration Clearance, the Respondent was required to obtain the
Customs Clearance, which was to either pass through the Red or Green
Channel, as the case may be.
46. The interception of the Respondent was made prior to his being able
to proceed for the Customs Clearance. In these circumstances, it cannot be
said that the Respondent either made any false declaration, as none could be
done by him, as he yet had not reached the stage of Customs clearance, due
to his prior apprehension. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that there
was any endeavour or attempt by him, to evade the Custom Duty. Had it
been a case where the Respondent had tried to walk out of the Airport
without going through the Customs Clearance, it may have been a case for
fraudulent evasion of the Customs Duty, but in the present circumstances,
his apprehension was prior to his availing the opportunity of getting the
Customs Clearance.
47. It cannot be overlooked that the Respondent had concealed 3496.400
Grams of Gold in his waist belt, which he was wearing under his pants and
Signature Not Verified CRL.A.1503/2025 Page 11 of 14
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:20.05.2026
17:39:58
underwear, which creates a suspicion about his intention to evade the
Custom Duty. However, this being a criminal prosecution, it had to be
established beyond reasonable doubt that indeed, he had indulged in
fraudulent tax evasion. It can be said that the Respondent may have reached
the stage of preparation for committing the offence, but before any act of
attempt or commission could have been done, he had been apprehended.
48. In these circumstances, Learned ACMM rightly observed that the pre-
emptive action was taken by the Customs Officers even before Respondent
could get the Customs Clearance and therefore, it cannot be said that he
committed the offence under Section 132 or 135 of Customs Act.
49. Another significant aspect is that the Respondent in his testimony as
DW-1, had deposed that on 11.02.1991, he was wearing a white shirt and a
black jacket. He had been apprehended by the Customs Officer, before he
could leave the Red Channel. Immediately thereafter, he was taken to a
room where he was forced and tortured into making an involuntary
statement, which was recorded under Section 108 of the Act, by PW-1 Sh.
R. C. Mahajan.
50. The Respondent deposed that he wanted to declare the Gold at the
Red Channel, but did not get the opportunity. He further explained that he
had purchased his Gold in England and had paid Gold Value Added Tax
(„VAT‟) at the Airport. While leaving for India, he had declared his Gold, at
the British Airport. He produced the Certificate submitted at Heathrow
Airport, London on 11.02.1991, while leaving for India, as Mark DW-1. He
further deposed that he was carrying goods in three separate packets.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A.1503/2025 Page 12 of 14
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:20.05.2026
17:39:58
51. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he had brought the Gold to
India, and that his Statement under Section 108 of Customs Act and other
documents, including DW-1/C Goldsmith‟s Certificate, bear his signatures,
but he claimed that his statement made to PW-1, was not voluntary.
52. It is therefore, proved that while the Respondent had brought Gold in
India, but he was apprehended before he could get the customs clearance.
There is no false declaration or false documents, etc. submitted by the
Respondent and therefore, no offence under Section 132 of Customs Act is
made out.
53. In so far as Section 135(a) and (b) of Customs Act is concerned, it
deals with misdeclaration of value of any Gold or any fraudulent evasion of
duty or carrying any goods, which he knows are liable to confiscation under
Section 111 or 113 of Customs Act. However, in the present case, it has
emerged that Respondent may have come prepared or had an intention, but
he was apprehended before any attempt of fraudulent evasion of the Custom
Duty, was made by him, as has been by observed by Kerala High Court in
the case of Vigneswaran Sethuraman vs. Union of India, 2014 (308) ELT
394 (Ker).
54. The Respondent was indeed found in presence of the Gold. There is
no prohibition on import / export of Gold, either in U.K. or in India, and at
best the Custom Duty could have been imposed upon the Respondent, but no
other criminal action, is sustainable against the Respondent. The prosecution
failed to prove the fraudulent evasion of the Customs Duty.
55. Therefore, learned ACMM has rightly acquitted the Respondent,
under Sections 132 and 135 of Customs Act.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A.1503/2025 Page 13 of 14
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:20.05.2026
17:39:58
56. There is no merit in the present Appeal, which is hereby, dismissed,
along with pending Applications.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
MAY 20, 2026/R
Signature Not Verified CRL.A.1503/2025 Page 14 of 14
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:20.05.2026
17:39:58
