2000 (8) TMI 87 - SC - Customs

Whether is it necessary to comply with the precautions envisaged in Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for short the code when Customs officers record statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act? Held that - A statement recorded by customs officers under Section 108 of the Customs Act is admissible in evidence. The court has to test whether the inculpating portions were made voluntarily or whether it is vitiated on account of any of the premises envisaged in Section 24 of the Evidence Act. Such an exercise can be made only after the appeal is regularised by granting leave to appeal. Since leave was declined on a wrong interpretation of law we have to interfere with the impugned order. We, therefore, allow these appeals and set aside the impugned order. Leave applied for will stand granted. Resultantly, the appeal filed in the High Court will stand Regularised. Now the High Court is to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues:
1. Compliance with precautions in Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when Customs officers record statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act.
2. Admissibility of statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act without following Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Issue 1: Compliance with Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The appeal before the Supreme Court questioned whether it is necessary to comply with the precautions outlined in Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when Customs officers record statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that compliance with Section 164 is necessary if the statements are to be used against the maker. The Single Judge followed this view, leading to the refusal of leave to appeal against an order of acquittal. The Supreme Court examined the legal position adumbrated by the Division Bench regarding this issue.

Issue 2: Admissibility of Statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act:
The case involved companies and their directors prosecuted for offenses under the Central Excise Act and the Indian Penal Code. The trial court acquitted all the accused based on insufficient evidence. The High Court, following a previous decision, held that inculpatory statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act without complying with Section 164 of the Code are inadmissible in evidence. The Supreme Court analyzed the legal framework of Section 108, emphasizing that it does not require magisterial intervention. The Court clarified that such statements made to non-police personnel are admissible unless impaired by vitiating factors under Section 24 of the Evidence Act. The Court referred to past judgments affirming the admissibility of such statements.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that statements recorded by customs officers under Section 108 of the Customs Act are admissible in evidence. The Court emphasized the need to test the voluntariness of inculpating portions and check for vitiating factors under Section 24 of the Evidence Act. The Court found that the High Court's refusal of leave to appeal was based on a wrong interpretation of the law. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned order, and granted leave to appeal. The High Court was directed to dispose of the appeal in accordance with the law promptly. Parties were instructed to appear before the High Court without the need for fresh notice.