2004 (9) TMI 197 - AT - Customs

Penalty - Smuggling of gold biscuit of foreign origin - Evidence - HELD THAT - In the present case, the only evidence against the appellant is of Mr. Krishan Prasad who disclosed in his statement that he purchased the gold biscuit from the appellant. There is no other evidence to connect the appellant with the smuggling activities or sale of gold biscuit. The premises of the appellant was searched but no incriminating document or other thing was recovered. The only evidence against the appellant is of Krishan Prasad in which he implicated the appellant. Thus, there is no other supporting evidence or corroborative evidence or any incriminating document against the appellant. The only inculpatory statement of co-accused cannot be the basis for penalty. Accordingly, the penalty is not sustainable on the sole ground of statement of co-accused in the absence of any other corroborative independent evidence. In view of the above discussions, appeal deserves to be allowed. Consequently, I allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant. Stay petition also gets disposed of.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the imposition of penalty on the appellant based on the inculpatory statement of a co-accused without independent corroboration and the admissibility of such statement as evidence.

Imposition of Penalty:
The case involved the recovery of a gold biscuit of foreign origin from a person, who stated that he purchased it from the appellant. The appellant denied involvement and no other evidence connected him to the smuggling activities. The only evidence against the appellant was the statement of the co-accused. The appellant argued that penalty cannot be imposed solely based on the statement of a co-accused without independent corroboration. The appellant relied on various decisions to support this argument.

Admissibility of Co-Accused Statement:
The Revenue argued that the inculpatory statement of the co-accused can be the basis for conviction without corroborative evidence. They cited relevant case laws to support their position. However, the appellant contended that in the absence of any other supporting evidence or incriminating documents, the penalty based solely on the statement of the co-accused is not sustainable.

Judgment:
The Tribunal found that there was no other evidence to connect the appellant with the alleged smuggling activities or sale of the gold biscuit apart from the statement of the co-accused. The Tribunal noted that in previous cases relied upon by the Revenue, there was additional corroborative evidence available. As there was no independent corroboration or incriminating material against the appellant in this case, the penalty imposed solely on the basis of the co-accused statement was deemed unsustainable. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, and the penalty was set aside.