Landmark Judgments

State of Maharashtra Vs. Mohd. Yakub, AIR 1980


State of Maharashtra Vs. Mohd. Yakub, AIR 1980

Fact of the case :
In this case the customs department received secret information that silver would be transported in a jeep and a truck. A team led by Superintendent Wagh and Inspector spotting the suspect vehicles heading toward Bassein. The vehicles diverted toward Kaman village, stopped at a bridge, and began unloading bundles. The customs officers then surrounded the vehicles and thereafter they heard the sound of a mechanized sea craft from the side of the creek. Many silver ingots were recovered from under the sawdust bags in the truck. 
While the trial court convicted the accused for attempting to smuggle silver out of India, the Court of Session acquitted them as proof of the charge fell short and the High Court confirmed the order. 
Issue Involved
Whether the actions of the accused amounted to an attempt to unlawfully export silver in contravention of Indian law? 
Held: Agreeing with the trial court's decision, the Supreme Court has held that the charge against the accused that silver was being exported in violation of the law out of India was proved. 
Analysis of the circumstances revealed a clear intention by the accused to unlawfully export silver from India by sea. The Court said that the accused, under cover of darkness, concealed silver ingots in vehicles and approached the seashore. They began unloading the silver near a creek, accompanied by the sound of a sea-craft engine nearby, indicating the proximity to completion of the unlawful export.
“It was observed by the court that the main purpose of the law was to prevent the evil of smuggling precious metal out of India and a narrow interpretation of the word ‘attempt’ would defeat that purpose. Thus, moving, the contraband goods deliberately to the place of embarkation (boarding) is an act proximate to the completion of the unlawful export. 
It is to be noted that some act must be done towards the commission of offence and such act must be ‘proximate’ to the intended result. Proximity need not be in relation to time and action but in relation to intention”.