2010 (12) TMI 1045 - HC - Customs

Criminal Revision Applications - applicant submitted that the basis of conviction of the present applicant (A-2) is on the basis of the statement of the co-accused under Section 108 of the Customs Act also submitted that assuming that the statement of the present applicant is inculpatory can conviction be based solely on such confessional statement Held that - statement recorded by Customs Officers under Section 108 of the Customs Act is admissible in evidence. The court has to test whether the inculpating portions were made voluntarily or whether it is vitiated on account of any of the premises envisaged under Section 24 of the Evidence Act no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings arrived at by both the Courts below and the present Revision Applications deserve to be dismissed

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility and probative value of statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act.
2. Whether conviction can be based solely on confessional statements.
3. The relevance of statements made by co-accused.
4. Allegations of coercion and voluntariness of statements.
5. Scope of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Admissibility and Probative Value of Statements Recorded Under Section 108 of the Customs Act:
The court held that statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act are admissible in evidence. It was emphasized that such statements are not akin to those recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court referred to the judgment in Union of India v. Bal Mumund & Ors., which stated that statements made before Customs officials are material pieces of evidence and can be used as substantive evidence connecting the accused with the contravention of the Customs Act. The court also cited the case of K.I. Pavunny v. Assistant Collector, which affirmed the admissibility of such statements even if retracted later.

2. Whether Conviction Can Be Based Solely on Confessional Statements:
The court examined whether a conviction could be sustained solely on the basis of confessional statements made under Section 108 of the Customs Act. It was argued that such statements require corroborative evidence. The court referred to the case of Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar, which stated that a confession of a co-accused must be corroborated by other evidence. The court concluded that while confessional statements are admissible, they should be corroborated by additional evidence to sustain a conviction.

3. The Relevance of Statements Made by Co-Accused:
The court discussed the admissibility of statements made by co-accused and whether they could be used against other accused persons. It was argued that statements of co-accused recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act are weak pieces of evidence and cannot be relied upon without corroboration. The court referred to the judgment in Superintendent of Customs v. Bhanabhai Khalpabhai Patel, which emphasized that statements of co-accused require independent corroboration. The court held that such statements could be used as evidence but must be corroborated by other material evidence.

4. Allegations of Coercion and Voluntariness of Statements:
The court addressed the issue of whether the statements recorded under Section 108 were made voluntarily or under coercion. It was argued that the statements were recorded under duress and should not be admissible. The court referred to the case of Ramesh Chandra Mehta v. The State of West Bengal, which stated that statements made under threat or coercion are not admissible. However, the court found that there was no substantial evidence to prove that the statements were made under coercion and therefore held them to be admissible.

5. Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction of the High Court:
The court emphasized the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, stating that it is supervisory and not equivalent to appellate jurisdiction. It referred to the judgment in State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, which stated that revisional jurisdiction is for correcting miscarriages of justice and not for re-appreciating evidence. The court concluded that unless there is a glaring feature indicating a miscarriage of justice, the revisional jurisdiction should not be exercised to interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the revision applications, holding that the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act are admissible and can form the basis for conviction if corroborated by other evidence. The court found no substantial evidence of coercion and upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The applicants were granted eight weeks to surrender and approach a higher forum.

← Previous Next →