High Court finds Sri Lankan not guilty after serving full sentence in gold smuggling case

The High Court has acquitted a Sri Lankan man who had already completed a one-year jail sentence for smuggling more than two kilograms of gold hidden inside his clothing.

He was sentenced by the Criminal Court on October 28 last year for smuggling goods into the country. The High Court overturned the conviction exactly one year later, on October 28 this year, meaning he had fully served the sentence imposed by the lower court by the time the acquittal was delivered.

Summary of the case

The case began on September 21, 2023, when Mohamed Sulaimhan arrived in Maldives on an Emirates flight via Dubai. As he attempted to exit through the Green Channel at Velana International Airport, customs officers stopped him and found documents indicating he had purchased gold in Dubai. A total of 2,282 grams of gold paste was discovered hidden in the front and back pockets of his jeans and inside his boxers.

He was charged with “smuggling of goods” under Section 97(a) of the Customs Act and subsections 

Legal grounds for acquittal

The High Court unanimously ruled that the charges lacked the essential elements required under the law. Judge Mohamed Abdullah noted that “smuggling of goods” under Section 97(a) applies only when the goods are prohibited or require a special permit, or when duty-payable goods are secretly imported with the intention of evading duty.

However, the prosecution conceded during trial that the gold was not prohibited and not duty-payable.

The State argued that undeclared gold “could be construed as an unauthorized commodity,” but the High Court rejected this, stating that neither the State nor the courts can criminalize conduct that the Legislature has not explicitly defined as an offence, citing Article 59(a) of the Constitution and principles of the Penal Code. The bench also noted that undeclared goods cannot automatically be treated as “prohibited goods,” and that the indictment failed to clearly establish the pillars of the offence as required under Article 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

For these reasons, the High Court held that the Criminal Court’s conviction violated Articles 51(h) and 59(a) of the Constitution.

The bench comprised Judge Mohamed Shaneez, Judge Hussain Mazeed, and Judge Huzaifa Mohamed.

Serving a full sentence in prison and later being found not guilty by a higher court is an outcome rarely seen in the Maldivian justice system.