1998 (10) TMI 482 - AT - Customs

Penalty - Smuggling of contraband silver - Evidence - Statement whether recorded during wrongful confinement.

Summary

Issues:
1. Sufficiency of evidence based on statements of witnesses.
2. Retraction of statements by a witness and its impact on the case.
3. Admissibility of statements without the mandatory warning under Section 164(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence based on statements of witnesses:
The case involved an appellant, a seaman with the Customs House, who faced penalties for his alleged involvement in smuggling activities based on statements of witnesses. The primary witness, Mohan Koli, provided detailed accounts of the smuggling operation, implicating the appellant. The appellant's advocate argued that relying solely on Koli's statement was insufficient for penalizing the appellant. However, the Tribunal cited a Supreme Court decision where penalties were imposed based on another person's statement, emphasizing the relevance of such evidence. The Tribunal found the evidence, including Koli's identification of the appellant and his involvement, to be substantial, leading to the imposition of penalties.

Issue 2: Retraction of statements by a witness and its impact on the case:
The appellant's defense included the retraction of statements by witness Mohan Koli, suggesting that reliance on his statements was improper. The appellant claimed that Koli retracted his statements after being arrested, raising concerns about the validity of the initial statements. However, the Tribunal noted that the Magistrate did not take further action on the alleged illegal detention of Koli, indicating a lack of substantial evidence to support the claim. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of proper legal procedures in addressing allegations of illegal detention and emphasized the significance of the witness's initial statements in the case.

Issue 3: Admissibility of statements without the mandatory warning under Section 164(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code:
The appellant's counsel argued that the statements of witness Mohan Koli were inadmissible due to the absence of the mandatory warning under Section 164(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Tribunal reviewed relevant judgments and clarified that the warning requirement applied to confessional statements, which was not the case in this scenario. The Tribunal distinguished cases where confessions were involved and emphasized that Koli's statements were not against him. The Tribunal also addressed the appellant's references to other cases regarding the admissibility of statements, highlighting the specific legal context and relevance to the current proceedings. Ultimately, the Tribunal found the evidence, including corroborative statements, sufficient to support the penalty imposed but reduced the amount considering various factors, including the appellant's employment with the department.