1994 (5) TMI 89 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against penalty imposed under Section 74 of the Gold Control Act, 1968
- Appeal against penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962
- Reliability of statement of co-accused as evidence
- Requirement of corroborative evidence for conviction

Analysis:

The judgment involves two appeals filed against penalties imposed under the Gold Control Act, 1968, and the Customs Act, 1962. The penalties were imposed on the basis of gold recovered from a person, leading to the interception and search of his shop where foreign gold was found. The person claimed to have received the gold from another individual and implicated the appellant in the transaction. However, the person later retracted his statement, casting doubt on the reliability of the evidence against the appellant.

The appellant argued that the only evidence against him was the statement of the co-accused, which lacked corroboration. The Revenue, represented by the Junior Departmental Representative, relied on the co-accused's statement to link the appellant to the seized gold. The Tribunal considered the conflicting statements and the lack of independent evidence supporting the co-accused's statement.

The Tribunal emphasized the need for corroborative evidence when relying on the statement of a co-accused. In this case, the co-accused's statement was retracted, and he provided inconsistent versions, undermining its reliability. The appellant denied the allegations, and no other evidence supported the co-accused's initial statement. The Tribunal concluded that the evidence of the co-accused alone was insufficient to establish the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

As a result of the lack of corroborative evidence and the unreliability of the co-accused's statement, the Tribunal allowed both appeals and set aside the penalties imposed under the Gold Control Act, 1968, and the Customs Act, 1962. The judgment highlights the importance of corroborative evidence in establishing guilt and the need for reliable and consistent testimony to support allegations in legal proceedings.