9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of Penalty 2. Confiscation of Gold 3. Admissibility and Voluntariness of Confessional Statement 4. Treatment of Retracting Statement 5. Jurisdictional Errors by Tribunal and Collector Summary: 1. Imposition of Penalty: The writ petitioner, Manindra Chandra Dey, challenged the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- by the customs authorities, which was confirmed by the Tribunal. The penalty was imposed by an order of the Collector dated 21-4-1986 and upheld in appeal by the Tribunal on 21-11-1989. A reference application was dismissed by the Tribunal as out of time. 2. Confiscation of Gold: Two gold bars and one gold stick were confiscated, but the petitioner claimed irrelevance to him as he neither owned nor possessed them. The confiscation forms a separate legal proceeding and is not addressed in this judgment. 3. Admissibility and Voluntariness of Confessional Statement: The central issue was the possession of the gold items. The customs authorities claimed the gold was found in a bag carried by the petitioner. The Tribunal and Collector accepted the confessional statement made by the petitioner. However, the court found that both quasi-judicial authorities proceeded on a wrong legal approach regarding the confessional statement, which was not proven to be voluntary. The Tribunal failed to consider the petitioner's physical and mental condition and the circumstances under which the statement was made, including the fact that the petitioner was a heart patient with a pacemaker. 4. Treatment of Retracting Statement: The Tribunal erred by not considering the retraction statement made by the petitioner five days after the confessional statement. The Tribunal incorrectly assumed that the delay in retraction reduced its weight to the point of non-consideration. The court emphasized the distinction between admissibility and the weight of evidence, criticizing the Tribunal for not balancing the confessional and retracting statements. 5. Jurisdictional Errors by Tribunal and Collector: The Tribunal and Collector failed to apply the correct legal principles regarding the voluntariness of the confessional statement. The Tribunal did not inquire into the petitioner's state of mind or the exact timing of the statement. The court highlighted that the onus was on the prosecution to prove the statement's voluntariness, which was not demonstrated. The Tribunal also incorrectly treated the confessional statement as corroborative evidence without sufficient corroboration from other sources. Conclusion: The court quashed the decisions of the Collector and the Tribunal against Manindra Chandra Dey, particularly regarding the penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. The bank guarantee and bond furnished by the petitioner were discharged, and the petitioner was entitled to the costs of the application. The proceedings against other individuals involved were not pronounced upon and remained as they were in law.
|
