2018 (4) TMI 1259 - HC - Customs

Smuggling - Gold - It is the complainant s case that both the accused knowingly concerned in respect of said gold biscuits in the fraudulent evasion of duty chargeable thereon and prohibition imposed under Customs Act committed an offence punishable under Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 - statements recorded under Section 108 were concluded - whether the statements were voluntary or were made under coercion - Held that - all panchanamas were concluded at 6.30 p.m. on 8.1.1988. Statements as recorded would hardly require 3 to 4 hours. In fact Mrs. Mane submitted statements were recorded after concluding house search panchanama. Question is why accused were detained in office for whole night ? Why Appellant could not clarify at what time statements of accused under Section 108 of the Customs Act were recorded ? As informed accused were arrested on 9.1.1988 at 10 a.m. i.e. next day. In these circumstances, it can be safely concluded that both the accused were detained in the office of the Customs for whole night and thus, the contention of the Appellant that the statements were voluntary and were not influenced by the authorities cannot be accepted. Both the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 were not voluntary statements inasmuch as there is evidence on record of P.W.2 to show that both the accused were detained in the office of the Customs for whole night and on the second day, i.e., 9.1.1988 at 10.00 a.m. they were shown arrested and produced before the learned Magistrate. Thus even though statement under Section 108 carry substantive evidentiary value, such statements in the case in hand are of no assistance to the Prosecution - There is no other evidence on record, except such statements. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
- Offences under Section 135(1)(a)(i) and 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962
- Offences under Section 34 of the IPC and Section 85(i)(ii)(iii) of the Gold Control Act, 1968
- Evidence evaluation based on statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act

Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Bombay pertains to an appeal filed by the Assistant Collector of Customs against the acquittal of Accused Nos. 1 and 2 for offences under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Gold Control Act, 1968. The case involved the apprehension of Accused No. 1 with foreign-origin gold biscuits and subsequent statements linking him to Accused No. 2, who was alleged to be involved in the smuggling activities. The prosecution contended that the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act were crucial evidence implicating both accused in the evasion of duty and contravention of customs laws.

The prosecution argued that the trial court erred in disregarding the inculpatory nature of the statements and failing to consider them as substantive evidence connecting Accused No. 2 to the offences. However, the defense highlighted weaknesses in the evidence, pointing out that the reliance on the co-accused's statement alone was insufficient for conviction. The defense further emphasized that Accused No. 2 had retracted his statement, questioning the voluntariness and reliability of the recorded statements.

The High Court scrutinized the evidence presented and evaluated the circumstances under which the statements were obtained. It noted discrepancies in the timeline of events, particularly the overnight detention of the accused before their formal arrest. The court concluded that the statements recorded under Section 108, while typically valuable evidence, lacked reliability in this case due to the questionable circumstances of their collection. With no corroborating evidence beyond the contested statements, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of Accused No. 2. The judgment underscored the importance of voluntary and untainted evidence in criminal proceedings, emphasizing the need for substantiated proof in establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.