9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the search and seizure procedure under Sections 102 and 103 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Validity of the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Applicability of Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in recording confessional statements. 4. Adequacy of evidence and the necessity of examining independent witnesses. 5. Appropriateness of the sentence imposed under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Search and Seizure Procedure: The petitioner challenged the legality of the search and seizure, arguing that the mandatory provisions of Sections 102 and 103 of the Customs Act, 1962 were not followed. The court clarified that Section 102 pertains to physical searches requiring the presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, while Section 103 deals with x-ray screening for detecting secreted goods. Since the customs officers opted for x-ray screening based on prior information, the procedure under Section 103 was deemed appropriate. The court held that Sections 102 and 103 operate in separate fields; hence, the customs officers were not required to follow Section 102 when opting for x-ray screening under Section 103. 2. Validity of the Statement Recorded under Section 108: The petitioner contended that the statement recorded under Section 108 was not voluntary and was made under coercion. The court noted that the two lower courts had found the statement to be voluntary and genuine. According to Sub-section (8) of Section 103, if a person admits to having secreted goods inside their body and voluntarily submits to suitable action, the procedures in Sub-sections (1) to (7) of Section 103 need not be followed. The court upheld the findings of the lower courts, stating that the statement was voluntary and admissible, and the customs officers were not required to follow the detailed procedures once the petitioner admitted to hiding gold biscuits. 3. Applicability of Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: The petitioner argued that the procedure for recording confessional statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should have been followed. The court distinguished between Section 108 of the Customs Act and Section 164 of the Code, explaining that the latter is specifically for recording confessions of accused persons by a Magistrate, who knows in advance that a confession is being recorded. In contrast, statements under Section 108 may or may not contain confessional elements, and the procedure under Section 164 is not applicable. Thus, non-observation of Section 164 does not vitiate the statement recorded under Section 108. 4. Adequacy of Evidence and Necessity of Examining Independent Witnesses: The petitioner argued that the non-examination of an independent witness named Faruque Mohmad weakened the prosecution's case. The court found that the evidence provided by the complainant, supported by the panch witness and the panchnama, was sufficient. The statement recorded under Section 108 further corroborated the evidence. The court held that the non-examination of the independent witness did not affect the prosecution's case, as the primary evidence was strong and unshaken during cross-examination. 5. Appropriateness of the Sentence: The petitioner claimed that the sentence of four years of rigorous imprisonment was too harsh. The court referred to Section 135 of the Customs Act, which prescribes a minimum sentence of three years for offenses involving goods exceeding one lakh rupees in value. Considering the modus operandi and the fact that the petitioner had concealed gold biscuits in his rectum, the court found the sentence appropriate and not excessively harsh. The court emphasized the anti-national nature of smuggling activities and the need for strict enforcement of customs laws to protect the nation's economy. Conclusion: The revision application was dismissed, and the judgments and conviction orders of the lower courts were confirmed. The court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments and upheld the legality of the search and seizure, the validity of the statement recorded under Section 108, the adequacy of the evidence, and the appropriateness of the sentence imposed.
|
