Issues Involved: The judgment involves the confiscation of foreign exchange and imposition of penalty based on statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, the use of co-accused's statement as evidence, and the legality of the order of confiscation and penalty imposition.
Confiscation of Foreign Exchange: The Customs officials apprehended individuals involved in attempting to export foreign exchange out of India, leading to the confiscation of the currency and imposition of a penalty. The petitioner challenged the confiscation, which was initially set aside by the Collector but later restored by the Government and affirmed by the High Court.
Use of Co-Accused's Statement: The revisional authority considered the statement of Mr. Dudani, a co-accused, as incriminating evidence against the petitioner. The authority concluded that the statement, along with other intrinsic material, established the contravention of passing off foreign currency out of India. However, it is argued that Dudani's statement alone cannot be used as substantive evidence without corroboration from other independent evidence, as per Section 30 of the Evidence Act.
Legality of Confiscation and Penalty Imposition: The judgment clarifies that statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, though not under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, are admissible as evidence collected by Customs officials. The material gathered incriminated the petitioner in contravening Customs Act provisions by exporting foreign currency. The court found no illegality in the order of confiscation and penalty imposition, stating that the evidence, including Dudani's statement, connected the petitioner to the contravention.
Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, upholding the order of confiscation of foreign currency and the imposition of the penalty, as there was no ground for reducing the fine based on the evidence presented.
9911796707
