Laxmipat Choraria and Ors v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 938

LAXMIPAT CHORARIA V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Laxmipat Choraria and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 938

ISSUE:

Whether the testimony of an accomplice, who was not prosecuted or tendered a pardon, was admissible as evidence?
Whether photostatic copies of documents could be used as evidence when the originals were unavailable?
Whether prior exposure of a witness to suspects’ photographs invalidated the witness’s identification?
Whether selective prosecution and the use of an accomplice as a witness violated constitutional protections under Articles 14 and 20?

RULE:

Accomplice testimony is admissible if it is corroborated, regardless of whether the accomplice is prosecuted or tendered a pardon.
Photostatic copies are admissible as secondary evidence if originals are unavailable and there is no suggestion of fabrication.
Witness identification remains valid if corroborated by independent evidence, even if the witness has prior exposure to suspects’ photographs.
Selective prosecution of an accomplice as a witness does not violate constitutional protections, provided it is a legitimate prosecutorial strategy.

FACTS:

The appellants, Laxmipat Choraria and others, were convicted under Section 120B IPC and Section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act for criminal conspiracy and smuggling by a Magistrate in Bombay.
The trial was initiated based on a complaint filed by the Assistant Collector of Customs under the authority of the Chief Customs Officer, Bombay.
On appeal, the Bombay High Court upheld the convictions on January 17 and 24, 1964. It also enhanced the sentences of two appellants, citing the severity of the offense.
The case was brought before the Supreme Court of India under its appellate jurisdiction via certificate from the High Court.
The appellants, in collaboration with a Hong Kong-based Chinese citizen, Yau Mockchi, conspired to smuggle gold into India using air stewardesses, including Ethyl Wong. Gold was concealed in suitcases with false linings.
The smuggling operation was discovered when Yau Mockchi approached Sophia Wong, another stewardess, who reported the plan to her superiors. A trap was laid, and Yau was arrested with a gold-laden suitcase.
Raids in India and Hong Kong resulted in the seizure of incriminating materials, including visiting cards, letters, account books, and photographs. Photostats of the documents were used as evidence after the originals were returned to Hong Kong under court orders.
Ethyl Wong, a self-confessed accomplice, admitted her involvement in smuggling gold and provided testimony against the appellants. Her evidence was corroborated by earlier statements, passenger manifests, hotel records, and other seized materials.
The appellants challenged the admissibility of Wong’s testimony, arguing she should have been prosecuted or tendered a pardon. They also contested the reliability of her identification and the use of photostatic evidence in place of originals.

HELD:

Ethyl Wong’s testimony was deemed admissible under Sections 118 and 132 of the Evidence Act. She was a competent witness, and there was no legal obligation to prosecute her or tender her a pardon for the trial’s validity.
The photostats of the documents were admissible as secondary evidence since the originals were suppressed by the accused. The court found no indication of fabrication or fraud in the photostatic copies.
Wong’s identification of the appellants, while influenced by prior exposure to photographs, was corroborated by independent evidence, making it reliable and valid.
The prosecution’s decision not to prosecute Wong and instead use her testimony did not violate Articles 14 or 20 of the Constitution. It was a lawful prosecutorial strategy under Section 494 CrPC.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the convictions and sentences. The court emphasized the severe economic impact of gold smuggling and supported the stringent sentences imposed by the High Court.