2000 (4) TMI 840 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with safeguards under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) while recording statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act.
2. Alleged detention and coercion of applicants by Customs Authorities.
3. Establishing a link between the Arab Dhow and the trawler used for transporting silver ingots.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Compliance with Safeguards under Section 164 CrPC:
The applicants contended that the Customs Authorities did not follow the safeguards provided under Section 164 CrPC while recording statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The Court held that the law on this aspect is well-settled and does not necessitate the safeguards of Section 164 CrPC for statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The Court referred to previous judgments, including a Division Bench ruling of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which clarified that statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act do not require the caution or warning as mandated under Section 164(2) CrPC. The Court emphasized that the admissibility of confessional statements is governed by Sections 24 and 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, and a Customs Officer is not considered a police officer under these sections. Therefore, the statements recorded under Section 108 are not inadmissible solely because the safeguards of Section 164 CrPC were not followed.

2. Alleged Detention and Coercion:
The applicants argued that they were detained by the Customs Authorities from October 4 to October 7, 1988, and their statements were recorded under duress and threats, making them involuntary. The Court noted that the medical records purportedly showing assault were not proven by the applicants and did not disclose any injury. The evidence indicated that the applicants' movements were not restricted during the said period, and they were called for investigation purposes. The Court referred to the judgment in Suaibo Ibow Casamma v. Union of India, which stated that withholding a person for investigation amounts to arrest. However, the Court found that the facts and circumstances did not support the claim of arrest or coercion. The concurrent findings of the lower courts, which did not find any evidence of duress or threats, were upheld.

3. Establishing a Link between the Arab Dhow and the Trawler:
The applicants contended that no link was established between the Arab Dhow and the trawler used for transporting the silver ingots. The Court acknowledged that in clandestine activities, direct evidence is often unavailable, and conclusions must be drawn from the facts and circumstances. The evidence showed that the Arab Dhow was intercepted near Fort Aguada, where 207 silver ingots were recovered, and the trawler was waiting to transport them. The lower courts were satisfied that the link between the Arab Dhow and the trawler was established based on the circumstances. The Court found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts, as they were based on material evidence and were not perverse.

Conclusion:
The Court found no merit in any of the revision applications. The arguments regarding the non-compliance with Section 164 CrPC safeguards, alleged detention and coercion, and the lack of a link between the Arab Dhow and the trawler were all rejected based on the evidence and legal precedents. Consequently, the revision applications were summarily dismissed.