2013 (4) TMI 134 - HC - Customs

Offence U/s 135 (1) (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Confiscation U/s 111 (d) - Section 108 - Upon search of Ashwani s car, pieces of watches, VCRs, etc. were recovered alongwith some documents and bill of entry, and the same were seized - Held that - A statement of co-accused cannot be excluded from consideration at the threshold of trial as its admissibility or inadmissibility under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has to be considered after the evidence is led in relation to it. Apart from this, there is similar statement of independent person-Dinesh Kumar, whose evidentiary value cannot be pre-judged at the initial stage. This Court is conscious of the fact that aforesaid Dinesh Kumar is not a cited witness by the respondent, but on this technical ground, petitioner cannot get a clean chit as list of additional witnesses can be always filed by the respondent even now before the trial court - Due to whose fault the trial of this case has not begun, is a matter which is not required to be gone into in these revisional proceedings, as mere delay would not be detriment because trial court record has been reconstructed. Prima facie, it appears that petitioner is the beneficiary of the seized goods and because applicability of Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 cannot be altogether excluded from consideration at this initial stage of trial, therefore, on the strength of decisions relied upon, petitioner is not entitled to discharge - Finding no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order - Dismiss this revision petition while refraining to comment upon the merits of this case lest it may prejudice either side at trial.

Summary

Issues:
- Affirmation of trial court's order and charge framed against the petitioner and co-accused under Section 135 (1) (a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
- Admissibility of statements of co-accused and independent persons as evidence.
- Consideration of evidence and statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act.
- Evaluation of the material on record at the stage of framing charges.
- Applicability of Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in relation to statements made under Section 108 of the Customs Act.
- Determination of the petitioner's connection with the offence based on available evidence.

Analysis:
The judgment affirms the trial court's order and charge framed against the petitioner and co-accused for an offence under Section 135 (1) (a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner's co-accused was apprehended with recovered items valued at Rs. 60,77,000, leading to the trial. The impugned order highlights statements of various individuals linking the petitioner to the smuggled goods, forming the basis for trial initiation.

The petitioner's counsel argued against the admissibility of statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, emphasizing the lack of legal evidence against the petitioner. However, the respondent's counsel supported the impugned order, citing various legal precedents and emphasizing the importance of statements made by co-accused and independent persons in establishing the petitioner's involvement.

The judgment discusses the limited scrutiny of material at the charge framing stage, citing relevant legal principles. It addresses the evidentiary value of statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, emphasizing their admissibility and the need for further evaluation during trial. The court concludes that mere retraction of statements is not sufficient to exclude them from consideration, especially when there is additional evidence linking the petitioner to the seized goods.

The court highlights that the petitioner cannot be discharged solely based on technicalities, considering the potential witnesses and evidence that may be presented during the trial. The judgment emphasizes that the petitioner being the beneficiary of the seized goods and the applicability of Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act necessitate a thorough trial process to determine the petitioner's connection with the offence.

Ultimately, finding no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, the court dismisses the revision petition, refraining from commenting on the case's merits to avoid prejudicing either party during the trial. The judgment underscores the importance of a comprehensive trial process to fairly evaluate the evidence and determine the petitioner's culpability in the alleged offence.