2020 (9) TMI 563 - HC - Customs

Smuggling - Gold - allegation is that along with the other accused namely Shahbaz and Abdul Lais, the petitioner/3rd accused used ladies as carriers for smuggling gold through various Airports in India - retraction of statements - offence punishable under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - The Customs Officials are not Police Officers. The confession, though retracted, is an admission and binds on the petitioner. Statement given under Section 108 of the Customs Act, which is inculpatory, is not hit by the provisions under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. Whether the statements of the co-accused could be used against the petitioner is a question to be determined by the trial court. It is, therefore, premature for this Court to discard the materials against the petitioner in the form of statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act given by the other accused. This is not a fit case for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings. Petition dismissed.

Issues:
1. Petition to quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
2. Reliability of evidence against the petitioner.
3. Allegations of smuggling gold through carriers.
4. Confession statements of accused persons.
5. Use of occurrence report by customs officers.
6. Applicability of Cr.P.C. provisions in Customs Act cases.
7. Use of statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act.
8. Impact of retracted confessions on the case.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking to quash proceedings against him in a case involving smuggling of gold. He argued that apart from confession statements, there was no reliable evidence against him to establish guilt. The petitioner contended that the proceedings should be quashed as there was no chance of conviction based on the available evidence.

2. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with other accused, used ladies as carriers to smuggle gold through various airports in India. The case involved the smuggling of 39 KGs of gold worth ?11.7 crores, intercepted at Calicut Airport. Confession statements of accused persons implicated the petitioner in the smuggling operation.

3. The confession statements of accused persons detailed the modus operandi of smuggling gold through concealment in their bodies. The accused admitted to previous smuggling activities through different airports and involvement of other accused as main operators of the smuggling gang.

4. The petitioner argued that he was solely implicated based on uncorroborated statements of co-accused individuals. The occurrence report and statements recorded by customs officers were used as evidence against the petitioner.

5. The Standing Counsel for the DRI objected to quashing the proceedings, stating that customs officers were not police officers, and occurrence reports were not equivalent to FIRs. The applicability of Cr.P.C. provisions in cases under the Customs Act was also contested.

6. The Court considered the arguments and precedent cases, emphasizing that confession statements, even if retracted, were admissions binding on the petitioner. The statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act were deemed inculpatory and not affected by certain Evidence Act provisions.

7. The Court concluded that the case was not suitable for quashing proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The reliability of confession statements and the use of such evidence against the petitioner were to be determined during trial. The petition to quash proceedings was dismissed, and the case was to proceed further based on the available evidence.

← Previous Next →