9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Acceptance of evidence of seizure of gold when panchas did not support the panchnama. 2. Treatment of applicant's statement recorded under duress as voluntary. 3. Treatment of applicant's statement regarding metallic yarn as a confession justifying penalty under Gold (Control) Act. Analysis: Issue 1: The applicant sought clarification on whether the evidence of seizure of gold, as per the panchnama, can be accepted when the panchas did not support it. The applicant's representative argued that the panch witnesses did not corroborate the seizure of gold bars during the search of the car. However, the Collector contended that this was a matter of evidence appreciation, not a legal question. The Tribunal upheld the seizure based on the panchanama and the presence of panchas during the search, concluding that the panchnama was valid evidence of the seizure. The Tribunal found no legal grounds to refer this issue to the High Court. Issue 2: The second issue raised was whether the applicant's statement, obtained under duress, could be considered voluntary. The applicant alleged that the statement was coerced after being detained and beaten by Customs officers. The Tribunal examined this claim and found no evidence supporting the coercion allegation. The statement was recorded by a Gazetted officer under Section 108 of the Customs Act, making it admissible as evidence. The Tribunal cited a Supreme Court judgment to support the admissibility of such statements. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that this issue did not warrant a legal reference to the High Court. Issue 3: The final issue concerned the treatment of the applicant's statement regarding metallic yarn as a confession justifying a penalty under the Gold (Control) Act. The Tribunal clarified that the applicant's statement did not amount to a confession, as he denied knowledge of the hidden gold bars. The imposition of the penalty was based on the overall evidence presented, not solely on the applicant's statement. The Tribunal determined that this issue did not raise a legal question but was a matter of evidence evaluation. Therefore, it was deemed unnecessary to refer this issue to the High Court. In a separate judgment by Member K. Gopal Hegde, it was emphasized that the application attempted to convert factual issues into legal ones to challenge the Tribunal's order. The judgment highlighted that the panchnama was used solely to evidence the seizure of gold bars, not as substantive evidence. The voluntary nature of the applicant's statement was also addressed, with the Tribunal finding no basis for coercion. Additionally, the Tribunal clarified that the applicant's statement was not treated as a confession, and the penalty was imposed based on a comprehensive assessment of all evidence. Consequently, the application was rejected based on the lack of legal grounds for reference to the High Court.
|
