1985 (5) TMI 240 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Voluntariness and admissibility of the appellant's confessional statement.
2. Applicability of the presumption under Section 123 of the Customs Act.
3. Reliability of the statement by M.P. Poulose, an alleged accomplice.
4. Legality of the penalty imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act and Section 74 of the Gold Control Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Voluntariness and Admissibility of the Appellant's Confessional Statement:

The appellant contested the voluntariness and truthfulness of the confessional statement recorded on 7-12-1980, claiming it was made under duress and during illegal detention. The Tribunal noted that the statement was recorded after the appellant was detained overnight in the Customs office, which raised doubts about its voluntariness. The Tribunal emphasized that any statement extracted through coercion or inducement is inadmissible under Section 24 of the Evidence Act, referencing Supreme Court rulings (AIR 1960 SC 1125 and 1978 (3) SCC 435). Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the confessional statement as not voluntary, thus lacking evidentiary value.

2. Applicability of the Presumption under Section 123 of the Customs Act:

The Tribunal evaluated whether the gold bars found buried in the appellant's backyard could be considered in his possession under Section 123 of the Customs Act. It concluded that the recovery from the backyard did not equate to possession by the appellant. The Tribunal held that Section 123's presumption applies only when the goods are recovered directly from a person's possession, not from a location within their property. The adjudicating authority's reasoning for applying Section 123 was found legally untenable, and the presumption was deemed inapplicable in this case.

3. Reliability of the Statement by M.P. Poulose:

The Tribunal considered the statement of M.P. Poulose, who was also penalized and described as an accomplice. The appellant argued that Poulose implicated him to extricate himself. The Tribunal noted that in criminal jurisprudence, an accomplice's evidence requires corroboration. In this case, the mere recovery of gold bars and Poulose's statement were insufficient to prove the appellant's guilt. The Tribunal held that the evidence against the appellant only raised suspicion, which is inadequate for legal proof, thereby entitling the appellant to the benefit of doubt.

4. Legality of the Penalty Imposed:

Under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act:
The Tribunal found no evidence that the appellant had conscious possession or control over the gold bars, thus invalidating the penalty imposed under Section 112(b). The appeal was allowed, and the penalty was vacated.

Under Section 74 of the Gold Control Act:
The Tribunal noted that the appellant was neither a gold dealer nor authorized to possess primary gold. However, for reasons similar to those in the Customs Act appeal, the Tribunal found no evidence of the appellant acquiring ownership or control of the gold bars in contravention of Section 8(1) of the Act. The appeal was allowed, and the penalty was vacated.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed both appeals, rejecting the appellant's confessional statement as involuntary, finding the presumption under Section 123 inapplicable, and deeming the evidence insufficient to prove the charges. Consequently, the penalties imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act and Section 74 of the Gold Control Act were vacated, giving the appellant the benefit of doubt.