1998 (8) TMI 99 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the complaint under Section 482 Cr. P.C.
2. Admissibility of statements under Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act.
3. Applicability of Section 30 of the Evidence Act regarding the confession of a co-accused.
4. The scope of Section 135 of the Customs Act.
5. The role of the trial court in evaluating evidence and the admissibility of confessions.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of the Complaint under Section 482 Cr. P.C.:
The petitioner sought to quash the complaint in Case No. 1512 of 1997 pending before the Special CJM (Economic Offences), Varanasi. The complaint was filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs against five individuals, including the petitioner, for an alleged offense under Section 135 of the Customs Act related to the smuggling of Chinese silk yarn and metal scrap.

2. Admissibility of Statements under Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act:
The complaint referenced statements made under Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act. The court noted that these statements are admissible and not hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act, as Customs Officers are not considered police officers. The court cited previous judgments, including the case of Rohit Agarwal v. State of U.P., which held that statements made to Customs Officers are admissible and not affected by Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

3. Applicability of Section 30 of the Evidence Act Regarding the Confession of a Co-Accused:
The court emphasized that while the confession of a co-accused is admissible, it cannot be the sole basis for conviction. Section 30 of the Evidence Act allows the court to consider such confessions, but they must be corroborated by other evidence. The court referenced several Supreme Court decisions, including Hari Charan v. State and AIR 1957 SC 381, which held that the confession of a co-accused is weak evidence and cannot be the foundation of a conviction.

4. The Scope of Section 135 of the Customs Act:
Section 135 of the Customs Act deals with the evasion of customs duty and prescribes punishment for those knowingly involved in fraudulent evasion or dealing with goods liable to confiscation. The court noted that the complaint alleged the involvement of the accused in smuggling Chinese silk yarn, which was concealed under metal scrap in the truck. The court highlighted that there was no defense claiming the silk yarn was not of foreign origin or properly imported.

5. The Role of the Trial Court in Evaluating Evidence and the Admissibility of Confessions:
The court directed the trial court to examine the materials and evidence presented by the complainant. The trial court must determine whether the prosecution of the petitioner is based solely on the confession of a co-accused or if there is additional evidence. If there is no other material evidence, the trial court should discharge the petitioner. The court emphasized that the trial court should consider the admissibility of the confession under Section 30 of the Evidence Act and ensure that the prosecution is not based solely on weak evidence.

Conclusion:
The application was disposed of with directions to the trial court to evaluate the evidence and determine the admissibility of the confession of a co-accused. The trial court was instructed to decide on the objections within a reasonable time, and the personal attendance of the petitioner was not insisted upon until a decision was made. The trial court was given three months to provide its decision after hearing both the complainant and the petitioner.