2001 (10) TMI 94 - SC - Customs

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? Held that - Regarding Section 24 of the Evidence Act the case of the appellant was that since the confessional statement was made under inducement and threat and physical assault which the High Court on examination declined to accept on the facts emerging from the evidence in the case there is no scope for this Court to interfere with the order in that regard in exercise of Jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. Thus it has to be held that the High Court rightly rejected the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant on that score. Thus the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against conviction under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Compliance with safeguards under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code - Voluntariness of statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act - Establishment of link between two vessels.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Compliance with Safeguards under Section 164 of CrPC:
The appellant contended that the Customs Authorities did not follow the safeguards provided under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code while recording his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The High Court rejected this contention, citing various decisions and holding that the provisions of Section 164 of the CrPC are not applicable to the confessional statement recorded by the Customs Officer under Section 108 of the Act. It was ruled that a statement under Section 108 is not affected by Section 164 CrPC or Section 25 of the Evidence Act.

2. Voluntariness of Statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act:
The appellant argued that the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Act were not voluntary as they were obtained under coercion, threats, and physical assault. However, the High Court found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact, concluding that the statements were voluntary. The Court emphasized that the inculpatory statement made by the appellant to a gazetted officer must pass the tests prescribed in Section 24 of the Evidence Act.

3. Establishment of Link between Vessels:
The appellant raised a point regarding the failure of the prosecution to establish a connection between the Arab dhow and the trawler on which he was present. The High Court, after examining the issue, declined to interfere with the finding, stating that no link had been established between the two vessels. The Court referenced previous judgments and concluded that a statement recorded by Customs Officers under Section 108 of the Customs Act is admissible in evidence, subject to scrutiny for voluntariness and compliance with Section 24 of the Evidence Act.

4. Final Decision:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, dismissing the appeal on the grounds that the contentions raised by the appellant lacked merit. The Court found no reason to interfere with the order, as the High Court had correctly addressed the issues raised regarding compliance with safeguards, voluntariness of statements, and the establishment of a link between the vessels. The judgment emphasized the admissibility of statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, subject to scrutiny for voluntariness and compliance with evidentiary standards.