2014 (7) TMI 730 - HC - Customs

Validity of the finding the appellant guilty and imposing penalty of ₹ 15 lakhs on the basis of the retracted confessional statements of the co-accused - retracted statements were filed after two months from the date on which the accused were apprehended. - smuggling of contraband gold biscuits to India - Held that - confession statement of co-accused can be treated as evidence, provided sufficient materials are available to corroborate such evidence. As far as retraction statement is concerned, it is for the person who claims that retraction has been made genuinely to prove that the statements were obtained under force, duress, coercion etc. Otherwise, the materials indicate that statements were given voluntarily. - When the statute permits such statements to be the basis of finding of guilt even as far as co-accused is concerned, there is no reason to depart from the said view. It is a question of appreciation of evidence. - appeal dismissed - Decided against the assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of imposing penalty based on retracted confessional statements of co-accused.
2. Validity of guilt finding without substantial and independent evidence.
3. Timing and validity of retraction of statements by co-accused.
4. Voluntariness of statements obtained during alleged illegal custody.
5. Reliance on the Supreme Court's judgment in Naresh J. Sukhwani vs. Union of India.
6. Distinguishability of Naresh J. Sukhwani's case from the current case.
7. Misinterpretation of the Supreme Court's judgment in K.I. Pavunni vs. Asstt. Collector of Customs.
8. Reliance on confessional statements without cross-examination.
9. Disparity in penalties imposed on different accused.
10. Reasonableness of the Rs. 15 lakhs penalty.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Imposing Penalty Based on Retracted Confessional Statements of Co-accused:
The court examined whether retracted confessional statements of co-accused could be the basis for imposing a penalty. It was established that if such statements are corroborated by other materials, they can indeed form the basis for penalties. The court noted that several individuals had implicated the petitioner in the smuggling operation, and these statements, even if retracted, cannot be dismissed outright unless proven to be forcibly obtained.

2. Validity of Guilt Finding Without Substantial and Independent Evidence:
The court held that the statements of co-accused, corroborated by other evidence, were sufficient to find the petitioner guilty. The original authority's decision was based on detailed accounts provided by multiple individuals, which were consistent and contained intricate details about the smuggling operation that could not have been fabricated by customs officers.

3. Timing and Validity of Retraction of Statements by Co-accused:
The court observed that the retractions were made two months after the initial statements were given. It was argued that the statements were obtained under duress, but the court found no evidence in the records from the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court indicating that the accused had complained of coercion when produced before the Magistrate. Hence, the retraction was not considered credible.

4. Voluntariness of Statements Obtained During Alleged Illegal Custody:
The court reviewed the claim that the statements were obtained during illegal custody and found no records supporting the allegations of force or coercion. The Tribunal had noted that the accused were not under restricted movement, and thus, the court concluded that the statements were voluntary.

5. Reliance on the Supreme Court's Judgment in Naresh J. Sukhwani vs. Union of India:
The court upheld the Tribunal's reliance on the Supreme Court's judgment in Naresh J. Sukhwani, which stated that statements made before customs officials under Section 108 of the Customs Act are admissible as evidence and can be used to substantiate charges against the petitioner.

6. Distinguishability of Naresh J. Sukhwani's Case from the Current Case:
The petitioner argued that Naresh J. Sukhwani's case was distinguishable as it did not deal with retracted confessions. However, the court found that the principles laid down in Naresh J. Sukhwani were applicable, as the statements were made voluntarily and were corroborated by other evidence.

7. Misinterpretation of the Supreme Court's Judgment in K.I. Pavunni vs. Asstt. Collector of Customs:
The court clarified that the Tribunal had correctly interpreted the Supreme Court's judgment in K.I. Pavunni, which allows retracted confessions to be considered if corroborated by other evidence. The Tribunal's decision was consistent with this legal principle.

8. Reliance on Confessional Statements Without Cross-examination:
The court noted that the petitioner's request for cross-examination of co-accused was not fulfilled. However, it held that the absence of cross-examination did not invalidate the confessional statements, as they were corroborated by other evidence.

9. Disparity in Penalties Imposed on Different Accused:
The court addressed the issue of disparity in penalties, noting that the petitioner was considered the kingpin of the smuggling operation, justifying a higher penalty compared to the co-accused, who played lesser roles.

10. Reasonableness of the Rs. 15 Lakhs Penalty:
The court found the penalty of Rs. 15 lakhs to be reasonable and warranted given the petitioner's central role in the smuggling operation. The adjudicating authority had considered the gravity of the offense and the corroborative evidence in determining the penalty amount.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the questions of law raised by the petitioner did not merit consideration and ruled in favor of the Department, affirming the penalty imposed on the petitioner.

← Previous Next →