2025 (2) TMI 432 - HC - Customs

Seeking grant of bail - smuggling of currency notes of U.S. Dollars - admissibility and sufficiency of the confessional statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act 1962 without corroboration - HELD THAT - It transpires that some interception was done by the D.R.I. officials at CCS International Airport Lucknow from where the co-accused person namely Tanvir Mustafa and other said accused persons were arrested wherein 3 kg. gold was recovered from the front shirt pocket of Tanvir Mustafa and thereafter on the basis of some call records the D.R.I. officials have also raided the house of the present applicant and recovered some articles. From perusal of the Panchnama it also reveals that no articles either of prohibited category or restricted category are recovered from the possession of the applicant or his house and therefore prima facie there seems to be no strong evidence and in consonance with the conversation with other co-accused persons. Further much emphasis is drawn on the statement of the present applicant-accused recorded under section 108 of the Act, 1962 and the argument is placed on behest of the D.R.I. officials that the confessional statement itself is enough to convict the applicant. Though it has been held by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Romesh Chandra Mehta Vs State of West Bengal 1968 (10) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT that the custom officers are not the police officers and the statement recorded under section 108 of the Act, 1962 is admissible in evidence though there seems to be no quarrel regarding the same whereas the further issue is that can the statement of an accused recorded under section 108 of the Act, 1962 blindly be accepted without any corroboration of other evidences ? Infact the admissibility of an evidence is one aspect of the matter and the conviction can lead only on the basis of the confessional statement recorded under section 108 of the Act, 1962 is the other aspect of the matter and the answer would be no. This court is of the opinion that the confessional statement of an accused recorded under section 108 of the Act, 1962 cannot blindly be accepted unless it is corroborated by any independent evidence/material as the same would not lead to conviction. The examination of confessional statement of the accused is essentially required so as to find out that the same is not taken under coercion or under extraneous influences. The trial court has also to be conscious enough while examining the correctness and voluntariness of the nature of the statement of the accused. It has also been noticed that the applicant has no previous criminal history which has been explained in paragraph 35 of the bail application and he is languishing in jail since 09-08- 2024 coupled with the fact that he has undertaken that if he is granted bail he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Conclusion - Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction nature of supporting evidence prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and without expressing any view on the merits of the case this is a fit case of bail. Let the applicant involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed. Application allowed.

Summary

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The primary issue considered was whether the applicant should be granted bail in the context of allegations under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, related to smuggling activities. The court examined the admissibility and sufficiency of evidence, particularly the confessional statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, and whether such a statement could form the sole basis for conviction without corroborative evidence. Additionally, the court considered whether the applicant posed a risk of tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses if released on bail.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents

The legal framework involved the Customs Act, 1962, particularly Sections 135 and 108, which pertain to offenses related to smuggling and the admissibility of statements made to customs officers. The court also considered precedents from the Supreme Court and High Courts regarding the treatment of confessional statements and the gravity of economic offenses.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning

The court acknowledged that while statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act are admissible, they cannot solely form the basis for conviction without corroboration. The court referenced the Supreme Court's stance that economic offenses are serious and distinct, requiring careful consideration of evidence.

Key Evidence and Findings

The evidence included the applicant's confessional statement and call records suggesting involvement in smuggling activities. However, no prohibited items were recovered from the applicant's possession. The court noted the lack of corroborative evidence linking the applicant directly to the smuggling operation.

Application of Law to Facts

The court applied the principle that a confessional statement under Section 108 requires corroboration by independent evidence to sustain a conviction. The absence of such corroboration, coupled with the lack of recovery of prohibited items from the applicant, led the court to question the strength of the prosecution's case.

Treatment of Competing Arguments

The applicant's counsel argued the lack of direct evidence and the applicant's clean criminal history. The prosecution emphasized the seriousness of economic offenses and the applicant's alleged involvement. The court balanced these arguments, considering the potential for the applicant to tamper with evidence or threaten witnesses.

Conclusions

The court concluded that the applicant should be granted bail, given the lack of strong evidence and the completion of the investigation. The court imposed conditions to mitigate the risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning

The court stated, "The confessional statement of an accused recorded under section 108 of the Act,1962, cannot blindly be accepted unless it is corroborated by any independent evidence/material as the same would not lead to conviction."

Core Principles Established

The court reaffirmed that while statements under Section 108 are admissible, they require corroboration for conviction. Economic offenses are serious, but evidence must be robust and corroborated.

Final Determinations on Each Issue

The court granted bail to the applicant, imposing conditions to ensure compliance with trial proceedings and prevent any potential misuse of bail. The decision emphasized the need for corroborative evidence in economic offenses and the importance of safeguarding fair trial rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.