1991 (4) TMI 128 - HC - Customs

Issues Involved:

1. Admissibility and voluntariness of statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act.
2. Legality of the seizure of goods under the Customs Act and Imports and Exports (Control) Act.
3. Proof of reasonable belief for seizure under Section 110 of the Customs Act.
4. Joint prosecution of accused without establishing conspiracy or abetment.
5. Corroboration of retracted confessions.
6. Procedural delays and their impact on the case.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Admissibility and Voluntariness of Statements:
The prosecution relied heavily on the statements of the accused recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The accused contended that these statements were not voluntarily made and were recorded under threat. The court noted that even though statements under Section 108 are admissible, they must be corroborated by independent evidence, especially when retracted. The evidence showed inconsistencies, such as the statement of accused No. 2 being explained by a witness, which cast doubt on their voluntariness.

2. Legality of the Seizure of Goods:
The court emphasized that for a seizure to be legal under the Customs Act and Imports and Exports (Control) Act, the goods must be shown to be liable to confiscation. The prosecution failed to establish that the seized goods were of the description covered by Section 111 of the Customs Act or Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act. The court found no evidence that the seizing officer had a reasonable belief that the goods were smuggled.

3. Proof of Reasonable Belief for Seizure:
The court scrutinized the evidence provided by P.W. 1 Mugave, who conducted the raid. It found that Mugave did not assert any reasonable belief that the goods were liable to confiscation. The complaint and panchanama did not corroborate the existence of such belief. The court concluded that the seizure was based on mere suspicion rather than reasonable belief, rendering the prosecution unsustainable.

4. Joint Prosecution of Accused Without Establishing Conspiracy or Abetment:
The court noted that the charge against the accused did not include any sections of the Indian Penal Code to establish conspiracy or abetment. Accused Nos. 2 to 5 were not found in possession of the goods and could only be implicated through evidence of conspiracy or abetment, which was lacking. The court held that the prosecution of these accused was bad in law due to the absence of such evidence.

5. Corroboration of Retracted Confessions:
The court highlighted the need for corroboration of retracted confessions. The prosecution's evidence, including the statements and panchanama, lacked credibility. The court pointed out contradictions in the evidence and the unnatural language of the statements, suggesting they were not voluntarily made. Without independent corroboration, the court found it unsafe to rely on these statements.

6. Procedural Delays and Their Impact:
The court expressed regret over the prolonged delay in the case, noting that the sanction for prosecution was obtained nearly five years after the seizure, and the trial lingered for four years. The court criticized the lack of satisfactory explanation for these delays and the failure to confront Mugave with the complaint. The delays and procedural lapses further weakened the prosecution's case.

Conclusion:
The court confirmed the acquittal of the accused, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges. The seizure was not based on reasonable belief, the statements were not corroborated, and the joint prosecution lacked evidence of conspiracy or abetment. The appeal was dismissed, and the bail bonds were canceled.

← Previous Next →