1989 (3) TMI 143 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of using statements obtained from the petitioner's wife and others in proceedings under the Customs Act or COFEPOSA Act.
2. Validity of the seizure of Indian currency and gold bars.
3. Allegations of coercion and illegal detention.
4. Applicability of Sections 107, 108, and 138B of the Customs Act.
5. Prematurity of the writ petitions.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Using Statements Obtained from the Petitioner's Wife and Others:

The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to prevent the respondents from using statements obtained from the petitioners' wives and others in any proceedings under the Customs Act or COFEPOSA Act. The petitioners argued that these statements were obtained illegally and under coercion. The respondents countered that the statements were obtained voluntarily and in accordance with Section 108 of the Customs Act. The court held that the writ petitions were premature and that the validity of using such statements should be challenged in appropriate proceedings, not through a writ petition.

2. Validity of the Seizure of Indian Currency and Gold Bars:

The petitioners contended that the seizure of Rs. 2,13,000/- and gold bars was illegal as no incriminating evidence was found during the search. They alleged that the seizure was made without a proper seizure memo and that the respondents coerced their wives into giving false statements. The respondents argued that the seizures were made based on reasonable belief that the items were proceeds of smuggled gold. The court did not delve into the validity of the seizures, stating that such issues should be raised in appropriate judicial or adjudicatory proceedings.

3. Allegations of Coercion and Illegal Detention:

The petitioners alleged that their wives and others were coerced into giving false statements and were illegally detained. The respondents denied these allegations, claiming that the statements were given voluntarily and that the individuals were not coerced or threatened. The court did not make a determination on these allegations, emphasizing that such issues should be addressed in appropriate proceedings.

4. Applicability of Sections 107, 108, and 138B of the Customs Act:

The petitioners argued that Sections 107, 108, and 138B of the Customs Act form a scheme and that statements obtained without satisfying the conditions of Section 138B cannot be used. The respondents contended that the statements were obtained in compliance with Section 108. The court held that the petitioners' arguments should be raised in proceedings arising out of detention orders or other appropriate forums, not in a writ petition.

5. Prematurity of the Writ Petitions:

The court found that the writ petitions were premature, as no detention orders had been issued against the petitioners under the COFEPOSA Act. The court cited a Division Bench decision, which held that issues regarding the use of confessional statements and the validity of detention orders should be raised in habeas corpus petitions or other relevant proceedings. The court concluded that it could not issue a blanket order preventing the authorities from taking action under other enactments.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the writ petitions on the grounds that they were premature and that the issues raised by the petitioners should be addressed in appropriate judicial or adjudicatory proceedings. The court emphasized that it could not provide a blanket injunction against the authorities from taking action under other laws. The petitions were dismissed without costs.