Nearly four decades after foreign wrist watches were found buried near a jetty in Gujarat, the Supreme Court of India has brought the long-running criminal case to a close.
On February 23, 2026, a Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta upheld the conviction of several accused under the Customs Act but reduced their sentence to the period already undergone, noting the extraordinary delay and their advanced age.
Read also:- Sikkim High Court Closes NHM Transfer Dispute After Amicable Settlement Between Employee
Background of the Case
The case dates back to April 30, 1985, when Customs officers at Mandvi received secret information that smuggled foreign wrist watches were concealed near a fisherman’s jetty.
Acting on the tip-off, officers excavated two pits near the Mandvi Gram Panchayat Rest House. Inside, they found two jute sacks containing 777 foreign-made wrist watches and 879 watch straps. The estimated value of the seized goods was over ₹2.22 lakh at the time.
According to the prosecution, the watches were smuggled into India aboard a vessel during the first week of February 1985. Several individuals were accused of concealing, storing, transporting and selling the goods. A criminal complaint was filed in 1987 under Section 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962.
In 2003, the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Bhuj convicted seven accused and sentenced them to three years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹2,000 each. The conviction was upheld by the appellate court and later by the Gujarat High Court.
The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court through criminal appeals.
Read also:- Patna High Court Dismisses Plea for Compensation Over Alleged Illegal Detention, Flags Lapses
Arguments Before the Court
Counsel for the appellants argued that the conviction rested primarily on statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. It was submitted that such statements, allegedly obtained under coercive circumstances, could not be the sole basis for conviction without independent corroboration.
It was also pointed out that some co-accused had been acquitted and that two appellants had passed away during the pendency of the appeal. The surviving accused, counsel argued, were now elderly and had already spent nearly a year in custody during trial and appeals.
On the other hand, the Additional Solicitor General opposed any leniency. He submitted that the case involved a significant smuggling operation and that the sentence imposed by the trial court was justified.
Read also:- Madras High Court Rules Grandparents Not ‘Family’ for Stamp Duty Concession in Settlement Deeds
Court’s Observations
The Bench examined whether statements recorded under Section 108 could legally form the basis of conviction.
Referring to earlier precedents, the Court noted that statements made before Customs officers under Section 108 are admissible in evidence, provided they are voluntary.
“The High Court was justified in holding that such statements, if voluntary, are substantive pieces of evidence,” the Bench observed.
The Court further noted that the conviction was not based solely on confessional statements. The statements had led to recoveries of incriminating material, including contraband goods and money, which were documented through panchnamas and supported by witness testimony.
Finding no perversity or legal error in the concurrent findings of the trial court, appellate court and High Court, the Bench declined to interfere with the conviction.
“The findings of guilt do not suffer from any illegality or manifest error warranting interference under Article 136,” the Court stated.
Read also:- Gujarat HC Sends 17-Year-Old Girl to Mehsana Children Home After She Refuses to Return to
On the Question of Sentence
While affirming the conviction, the Court turned to the issue of sentence.
The Bench took note of several factors:
- The incident occurred in 1985.
- The goods were recovered in an abandoned condition.
- Some co-accused had been acquitted.
- Two appellants had died during the appeal.
- The surviving appellants were of advanced age.
- They had already undergone around one year of imprisonment, which exceeded the statutory minimum of six months under the law as it stood then.
“In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, directing the appellants to undergo further incarceration would be unduly harsh,” the Court observed.
Read also:- Madras High Court Rules Grandparents Not ‘Family’ for Stamp Duty Concession in Settlement Deeds
Decision
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the surviving appellants under Section 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962.
However, it reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. Since the appellants were on bail, the Court directed that they need not surrender. Their bail bonds were discharged.
The appeals were partly allowed to that extent.
Case Title: Amad Noormamad Bakali v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1000 of 2012 with 1232–1237 of 2012
Decision Date: February 23, 2026
