1985 (5) TMI 245 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of co-accused's confessional statement under Section 138-B of the Customs Act.
2. Interpretation of Section 30 of the Evidence Act concerning the evidentiary value of a co-accused's confession.
3. Legal foundation for framing charges based on the co-accused's confession.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Admissibility of Co-Accused's Confessional Statement Under Section 138-B of the Customs Act:
The central issue revolves around whether the confessional statement of accused No. 2, recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, is admissible against accused No. 1 under Section 138-B of the Customs Act. The learned Sessions Judge erroneously interpreted Section 138-B, believing that the term "person" includes an accused who cannot be compelled to give evidence. The judgment clarifies that Section 138-B is intended for witnesses who are unable to testify due to reasons like death, inability to be found, or incapacity, not for co-accused facing trial. The legislative intent and scheme of Section 138-B do not support the inclusion of an accused person as someone "incapable of giving evidence."

2. Interpretation of Section 30 of the Evidence Act Concerning the Evidentiary Value of a Co-Accused's Confession:
The judgment explores the limitations of using a co-accused's confession under Section 30 of the Evidence Act. The learned Sessions Judge acknowledged that such a confession has limited evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for criminal liability. The Supreme Court's observations in Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar were cited to emphasize that a co-accused's confession is a weak type of evidence and can only lend additional assurance to a finding already reached based on other evidence.

3. Legal Foundation for Framing Charges Based on the Co-Accused's Confession:
The judgment critically examines whether the confessional statement of accused No. 2 can form the basis for framing charges against accused No. 1. It asserts that the statement of a co-accused, even if admissible under Section 30 of the Evidence Act, cannot be the foundation for framing charges. The court reiterated that the charge can only be framed if there is sufficient evidence that, if unrebutted, would warrant a conviction. The judgment aligns with the provisions of Section 245(1) and Section 246(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, emphasizing that the evidence against accused No. 1 is insufficient to frame charges.

Conclusion:
The High Court set aside the impugned order framing charges against accused No. 1, concluding that the confessional statement of accused No. 2 cannot be used as the sole basis for framing charges. The petitioner (accused No. 1) was discharged, and his bail bond was canceled. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to the proper interpretation of legal provisions and ensuring that charges are framed based on substantial evidence.