1990 (7) TMI 114 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Acquittal under Section 135(l)(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 based on lack of corroborative evidence for retracted confessional statements.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Acquittal of Respondent:
The case involved the respondent, a national of Bahrain, who was accused of attempting to export silver bars concealed in a car's petrol tank. The prosecution's case relied on statements made by the respondent which were later retracted. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate acquitted the respondent due to lack of independent corroboration for the retracted confessional statements. The judgment highlighted the importance of corroboration for such statements to ensure a safe conviction.

2. Lack of Corroborative Evidence:
The prosecution failed to establish that the respondent concealed silver bars in the car and attempted to export them. The evidence presented was mainly circumstantial, based on the retracted confessional statements. The judgment emphasized the principle that convicting based solely on retracted confessions without independent corroboration is unsafe. As there was no independent corroboration to support the statements, the court found no reasonable connection between the respondent and the alleged offence.

3. Circumstantial Evidence and Legal Principles:
The judgment discussed the detailed circumstances surrounding the case, including the importation of the car under a carnet procedure and the subsequent discovery of silver bars in the petrol tank during a search by Customs officers. Despite the circumstantial evidence presented in the confessional statements, the court reiterated the legal principle that convictions based on retracted confessions alone are unreliable without independent corroboration. The court upheld the acquittal of the respondent based on the lack of sufficient evidence to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

4. Conclusion and Dismissal of Appeal:
Ultimately, the High Court upheld the lower court's decision to acquit the respondent, emphasizing the prosecution's failure to provide substantial evidence linking the respondent to the alleged offences. The appeal challenging the acquittal was dismissed, affirming the judgment that the prosecution did not meet the burden of proof required for conviction. The judgment underscored the importance of corroborative evidence in cases involving retracted confessional statements to ensure a fair and just legal process.