1990 (10) TMI 90 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of confessional statements.
2. Corroboration of evidence.
3. Application of Sections 135(l)(a), 135(l)(b), r.w. 135 (1)(ii) of the Customs Act.
4. Application of Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act.
5. Retracted confessions as the basis for conviction.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Confessional Statements:
The prosecution's case relied heavily on the confessional statements of the accused, recorded under Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act. The accused retracted these statements, claiming they were made under threats and force. The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate initially accepted these statements as voluntary. However, the High Court noted that the retraction happened at the first available opportunity when the accused were before the trial Magistrate and free to speak. Thus, the High Court found that the learned Magistrate erred in relying on these retracted statements without corroboration.

2. Corroboration of Evidence:
The High Court emphasized the necessity of corroboration for retracted confessions. It noted that the independent witnesses' testimonies did not provide sufficient corroboration to link the accused directly to the smuggling activities. The learned Sessions Judge found that the statements of the accused, except for accused No. 2, were either exculpatory or did not demonstrate knowledge of the contraband nature of the goods. Therefore, the confessional statements alone, without independent corroboration, were insufficient for conviction.

3. Application of Sections 135(l)(a), 135(l)(b), r.w. 135 (1)(ii) of the Customs Act:
The learned Magistrate convicted the accused under these sections based on the confessional statements. However, the High Court upheld the Sessions Judge's finding that these convictions were not sustainable due to the lack of corroborative evidence. The statements of the accused did not conclusively prove their knowledge or involvement in the smuggling activities.

4. Application of Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act:
The High Court rejected the prosecution's argument that the accused could still be convicted under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, even if the Customs Act charges were not proven. The Court reasoned that the alleged offence under this Act was directly connected to the smuggling charges under the Customs Act. Since the latter could not be substantiated, the former could not stand independently.

5. Retracted Confessions as the Basis for Conviction:
The High Court reiterated the principle that retracted confessions require corroboration from independent sources. It noted that while some judicial pronouncements allow retracted confessions as the sole basis for conviction, this is contingent on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. In this instance, the lack of independent corroboration rendered the retracted confessions insufficient for sustaining the convictions.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Sessions Judge's decision to acquit the accused. It found no reason to interfere with the judgment, as the convictions were based on retracted confessions without sufficient corroborative evidence. The acquittal of the accused-respondents was maintained.