Supreme Court clarifies rules on using evidence from separate trials: A.T. Mydeen & Ors. vs. Customs Department (29 October 2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 29 October 2021

Citation: 2021 INSC 748

Judges: Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J., Vikram Nath, J., B.V. Nagarathna, J.

Can a court use evidence from one criminal trial to convict an accused in a separate but related trial? The Supreme Court of India recently examined this crucial question, emphasizing the importance of fair trial principles. This case revolves around a customs dispute where multiple individuals were accused of smuggling sandalwood. The key issue was whether the High Court was correct in using evidence from one trial to convict individuals in another separate trial. The Supreme Court bench comprised of Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J., Vikram Nath, J., and B.V. Nagarathna, J.

Case Background

On March 10, 1998, the Anti-Smuggling Wing of the Customs Department in Tuticorin raided a warehouse based on specific information. They discovered a large quantity of cardboard boxes containing sandalwood billets/sticks and Mangalore tiles. Three individuals present at the warehouse, Rahman Sait, Selvaraj, and Sullan, admitted that the goods were meant for clandestine export to Singapore. The seized sandalwood was valued at Rs. 96,52,800 and the Mangalore tiles at Rs. 10,000.

Following the investigation, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs filed criminal complaints against A. Dhanapal, A.T. Mydeen, Janarthanan, N. Ramesh, and Rahman Sait. These were registered as Calendar Case No. 2 of 2003. A separate complaint was filed against K.M.A. Alexander, who was initially absconding, and was registered as Calendar Case No. 4 of 2004. Both cases were filed in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court acquitted all the accused in both cases on May 23, 2008. The Trial Court found that there was no evidence to prove the accused were Customs House Agents or that they intended to illegally export sandalwood. It also noted that the sandalwood had arrived in Tuticorin two months prior and arrangements were being made to cancel the shipping bill. The Trial Court also stated that there was no evidence that the accused forged any documents, and that the case was pending before the Forest Department.

Aggrieved by the acquittal, the Customs Department appealed to the High Court. The Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, reversed the Trial Court’s decision on October 19, 2019, convicting all six accused under Section 135(1)(a)(ii) read with 135A of the Customs Act, while upholding the acquittal under Section 132 of the Customs Act. The High Court then sentenced the accused to one year of imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000 each, with an additional six months of rigorous imprisonment in default.

The six accused then separately appealed to the Supreme Court. Appellant No.1, Janarthanan, passed away on 28.09.2021, and his appeal was dismissed as abated.

Legal Framework

The case involves several key legal provisions. Section 132 of the Customs Act, 1962 deals with the making of false declarations. Section 135(1)(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962, concerns the illegal export of prohibited goods. Section 135A of the Customs Act, 1962, relates to the preparation for illegal export.

Section 273 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) mandates that all evidence in a trial be taken in the presence of the accused. Exceptions to this rule are found in Section 205 of the Cr.P.C., which allows for the personal attendance of the accused to be dispensed with, and Section 299 of the Cr.P.C., which permits the recording of evidence in the absence of the accused under certain circumstances.

Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, allows for the relevancy of certain evidence in subsequent proceedings under certain conditions. Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, deals with the consideration of a confession affecting the person making it and others jointly under trial for the same offense.

Section 132 of the Customs Act, 1962: “Making false declaration, etc. – Any person who 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 customs, knowing or having reason to believe that such declaration, statement or document is false in any material particular, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding five times the value of the goods.”

Section 135(1)(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962: “Evasion of duty or prohibitions. – Without prejudice to any action that may be taken under this Act, if any person – (a) evades or attempts to evade any duty chargeable thereon under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, or (ii) exports or attempts to export any goods the export of which is prohibited under this Act or any other law for the time being in force.”

Section 135A of the Customs Act, 1962: “Preparation. – If any person makes preparation to do any of the acts referred to in section 132 or section 133 or section 135 or section 135A, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine.”

Section 273 of the Cr.P.C.: “Evidence to be taken in presence of accused. –– Except as otherwise expressly provided, all evidence taken in the course of the trial or other proceeding shall be taken in the presence of the accused or, when his personal attendance is dispensed with, in the presence of his pleader.”

Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: “Relevancy of certain evidence for proving, in subsequent proceeding, the truth of facts therein stated. –– Evidence given by a witness in a judicial proceeding, or before any person authorized by law to take it, is relevant for the purpose of proving, in a subsequent judicial proceeding, or in a later stage of the same judicial proceeding, the truth of the facts which it states, when the witness is dead or cannot be found, or is incapable of giving evidence, or is kept out of the way by the adverse party, or if his presence cannot be obtained without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of the case, the Court considers unreasonable.”

Arguments

The appellants argued that the High Court erred by passing a common judgment in two separate appeals arising from two separate trials. They contended that the High Court considered evidence from only one case without specifying which one, and used it to convict all six accused in both appeals. This, they argued, violated the principles of criminal jurisprudence, the Cr.P.C., and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The appellants also pointed out that the witnesses were not examined in the same sequence and the documents were not exhibited in the same order in both trials.

The respondent, the Customs Department, conceded that the High Court considered evidence from only one case. However, they argued that since the evidence was identical in both cases, no prejudice was caused to the appellants. They contended that the appellants could not claim any benefit based on technicalities, as the evidence was the same in both trials.

The appellants, in rejoinder, argued that while the witnesses and documents were the same, the sequence of examination and the exhibit numbers were different. They emphasized that the High Court should have discussed the evidence of both cases separately, even if a common judgment was passed.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The central issue framed by the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the evidence recorded in a separate trial of co-accused can be read and considered by the appellate court in a criminal appeal arising out of another separate trial conducted against another accused, though for the commission of the same offence.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered several authorities to address the issue. These authorities were categorized based on the legal point they addressed.

The Court cited Karan Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 1037 (Supreme Court of India), to emphasize that each case must be decided on its own evidence, and evidence from one case cannot be used in a cross-case.

The Court referred to Nirmal Singh vs State of Haryana, (2000) 4 SCC 41 (Supreme Court of India), which discussed the scope of Section 33 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 299 of the Cr.P.C., highlighting the need for strict compliance with these provisions.

The Court also referred to Jayendra Vishnu Thakur vs State of Maharashtra, (2009) 7 SCC 104 (Supreme Court of India), which underscored the importance of an accused’s right to watch prosecution witnesses and to cross-examine them.

The Court cited Raja @ Ayyappan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2020) 5 SCC 118 (Supreme Court of India), which dealt with the admissibility of a co-accused’s confession in a separate trial, concluding that such confessions are inadmissible.

The Court also considered State of Kerala and Others vs. Joseph Alias Baby and Others, (2014) 16 SCC 385 (Supreme Court of India), which held that a High Court cannot consider evidence from one case for another case.

The Court considered Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel vs. Rajivbhai Dudabhai Patel and Others, (2018) 7 SCC 743 (Supreme Court of India), which emphasized that evidence recorded in one case cannot be marked as evidence in another case, except in situations under Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

The Court also considered Doat Ali and Ors. vs. Mahammad Sayadali and Anr., AIR 1928 Cal 230 (Calcutta High Court), and Pedda Venkatapathi and Ors. vs. State, AIR 1956 AP 96 (Andhra Pradesh High Court), which held that evidence from one trial cannot be used against an accused in another trial.

Judgment

The Court emphasized that the evidence recorded in a criminal trial against any accused is confined to the culpability of that accused only and it does not have any bearing upon a co-accused, who has been tried on the basis of evidence recorded in a separate trial, though for the commission of the same offence.

The Court held that the High Court erred in using evidence from one trial to convict the accused in another trial. The Court highlighted that the right to a fair trial, as enshrined in the Cr.P.C. and the Evidence Act, 1872, includes the right to have evidence recorded in the presence of the accused and the right to cross-examine witnesses.

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court should have distinctly considered and dealt with the evidence of both the trials and then to decide the culpability of the accused persons. The court also noted that the witnesses in the second case were not examined in the same sequence as the first case and consequently, the 13 documents filed were also not given the same exhibit numbers in the second case as in the first case.

The Supreme Court rejected the argument that since the witnesses were the same in both the cases, the evidence was identical. The Court stated that the cross-examination of the witnesses was equally important and the same witnesses could have deposed differently in different trials depending upon the complicity or/and culpability of such accused.

The Court also emphasized that in a criminal appeal against conviction, the appellate court examines the evidence recorded by the trial court and takes a call upon the issue of guilt and innocence of the accused.

“The evidence led in Ramhans’ case and the decision there arrived at on that evidence would be wholly irrelevant in considering the merits of the appellant’s case.”

“A right to cross-examine a witness, apart from being a natural right is a statutory right.”

“The confession of an accused may be admissible and used not only against him but also against a co-accused person tried jointly with him for the same offence.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the principle of ensuring a fair trial for all accused. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory provisions of the Cr.P.C. and the Evidence Act, 1872, which guarantee the right of an accused to be present during the recording of evidence and to cross-examine witnesses. The Court was also concerned about the potential for prejudice if evidence from one trial was used in another separate trial. The Court was also concerned about the fact that the High Court had not followed the correct procedure in dealing with the appeals.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Evidence from one criminal trial cannot be used to convict an accused in a separate trial, even if the offenses are the same.
• ✓ The right to a fair trial includes the right to be present during the recording of evidence and the right to cross-examine witnesses.
• ✓ Appellate courts must independently assess the evidence recorded in each trial and cannot rely on a common judgment based on evidence from one trial.
• ✓ The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court’s procedure of considering evidence from one trial for deciding both appeals was an error in law.
• ✓ This judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to the statutory provisions of the Cr.P.C. and the Evidence Act, 1872, to ensure a fair trial.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and remanded the matter for a fresh hearing. The Supreme Court directed the High Court to consider the evidence of both trials distinctly and decide the culpability of the accused persons accordingly. The Supreme Court also clarified that all questions of law and fact would remain open before the High Court.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that evidence recorded in a criminal trial against any accused is confined to the culpability of that accused only and it does not have any bearing upon a co-accused, who has been tried on the basis of evidence recorded in a separate trial, though for the commission of the same offence. This case reinforces the principle that each trial must be decided on its own merits and evidence, and it clarifies the limitations on using evidence across separate trials. This judgment does not change the previous position of law, but reinforces it.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in A.T. Mydeen vs. Customs Department reinforces the fundamental principles of a fair trial. It clarifies that evidence from one trial cannot be used to convict an accused in a separate trial, even if the offenses are related. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and ensuring that each accused has the opportunity to confront the evidence against them. The matter has been remanded to the High Court for a fresh hearing in accordance with the law.