2009 (3) TMI 910 - HC - Customs

conviction and the order of sentence for the offence, punishable under Section 135 of the Customs Act - appeal dismissed - Held that - The concurrent findings, recorded by the Courts below, based on the correct appreciation of the cogent, convincing, reliable and trust worthy evidence of Davinder Singh, Inspector Customs, (PW-1), who deposed with regard to the recovery of gold biscuits, aforesaid, from Swinder Singh, (since deceased), who was accompanied by Sucha singh, revision-petitioner, Kulmohan Singh, Superintendent Customs, (PW-2), who also made a similar statement, and Mange Ram, Inspector, (PW-3) of Border Security Force, coupled with the voluntary confessional statements made by the revision-petitioner, under Section 108 of the Act that the accused was guilty of the offence, punishable under Section 135 of the Act, do not suffer from any illegality or perversity. Thus the revision-petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 16-12-1999, rendered by the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, and the judgment dated 30-9-2002, rendered by the Appellate Court, affirming the judgment of the trial Court, are upheld

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of confessional statements made before Customs Officers under Section 108 of the Customs Act.
2. Whether Customs Officers are considered Police Officers under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.
3. Validity of conviction based on retracted confessional statements.
4. Evaluation of evidence and findings by the lower courts.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Admissibility of Confessional Statements:
The primary issue was whether the voluntary confessional statements made by the accused under Section 108 of the Customs Act were admissible in evidence. The court referred to several precedents, including State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram and Romesh Chandra Mehta v. State of West Bengal, which established that Customs Officers are not considered Police Officers under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, confessional statements made before them are admissible. The court concluded that the confessional statements Ex. PX and Ex. PY made by the accused were legally admissible.

2. Customs Officers as Police Officers:
The court examined whether Customs Officers could be deemed Police Officers within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. Citing State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram, Romesh Chandra Mehta v. State of West Bengal, and Illias v. Collector of Customs, Madras, it was held that Customs Officers are primarily concerned with the detection and prevention of smuggling and safeguarding customs duties, not with the prevention and detection of crime per se. Therefore, they are not Police Officers under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. This view was reinforced by the judgment in K.I. Pavunny v. Assistant Collector.

3. Validity of Conviction Based on Retracted Statements:
The court addressed whether the retracted confessional statements could form the basis of conviction. The accused retracted his statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, claiming he was forced to sign blank papers. However, the court noted that the retraction occurred eight years after the statements were made, suggesting it was an afterthought. The court cited Union of India v. Satrohan, where it was held that delayed retractions are often afterthoughts and do not invalidate voluntary confessional statements. Thus, the court found the original confessional statements, coupled with the recovery of gold biscuits, sufficient for conviction.

4. Evaluation of Evidence and Findings by Lower Courts:
The court reviewed the evidence and findings of the lower courts, which were based on the testimonies of Customs officials and the voluntary confessional statements of the accused. The court emphasized that it could not re-evaluate or re-appreciate the evidence unless the findings were perverse or erroneous due to misreading of evidence. The court found no such errors in the lower courts' judgments and upheld their decisions, affirming the conviction and sentence of the accused.

Conclusion:
The revision petition was dismissed, and the judgments of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, were upheld. The Chief Judicial Magistrate was directed to comply with the judgment within two months, and the District & Sessions Judge, Amritsar, was tasked with ensuring compliance. The Registry was instructed to monitor the compliance and report back to the court.

← Previous Next →