2002 (4) TMI 81 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Framing of charge under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act based on evidence and admissibility of statements made during investigation.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Framing of Charge
The High Court of Delhi addressed the revision petition challenging the framing of charge against the petitioner under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act. The facts of the case involved the interception of a truck carrying a significant amount of gold, leading to the recovery and seizure of 27.17 kgs of gold valued at Rs. 57,05,815. The driver and cleaner admitted to the recovery, with the cleaner mentioning the involvement of the petitioner in the details of the seized articles. The trial court held that a prima facie case under Section 135(1) of the Customs Act was made out against the petitioner based on the evidence presented. The petitioner argued against the legality of the charge, claiming a lack of evidence and miscarriage of justice. However, the court disagreed, citing settled law that statements made during investigation by customs authorities are admissible as evidence. The court also considered the conduct of the petitioner, including absconding after the seizure, as relevant in framing the charge. The court emphasized that at the stage of framing the charge, evidence does not need to be fully appreciated, and even grave suspicion is sufficient, referencing various Supreme Court decisions to support this principle.

Issue 2: Admissibility of Statements
The court addressed the admissibility of statements made by witnesses during the investigation under the Customs Act. It clarified that statements recorded by customs officers during inquiries are admissible as evidence and are not protected under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. Additionally, the court noted that the confession of a co-accused would also be admissible under Section 30 of the Evidence Act. In this case, the statements of the driver and cleaner implicating the petitioner, combined with the petitioner's subsequent absconding, were considered sufficient to establish a prima facie case for framing the charge. The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the arguments presented against the framing of the charge. The judgment emphasized that any observations made in the decision would not impact the case's merits during the trial proceedings.