9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (12) TMI 216X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his appeal have been stated in the Order-in-Original and to some extent in the Board s order. We therefore do not propose to set out the facts in detail. Suffice it to mention that the Customs officers seized certain gold bars from two persons Batavia and Goryani. Their statements revealed that the gold bars were given by the present appellant Raghuwanshi. The statements of Raghuwanshi were also recorded and he admitted having given the gold bars to Batavia and Goryani. In addition he stated that he secured them from one Usman. He however did not give the address or other particulars of Usman and Usman could not be traced. The investigation and the search of the residence of the appellant were also carried out. Excepting Rs. 2,036/- found o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gainst the appellant. The statements of the other two persons are inadmissible evidence as the statements are that of co-accused. Besides the other two persons have resiled their statements. Therefore, there was absolutely no evidence whatsoever against the appellant. Besides Shri Shah further conceded that a sum of Rs. 2,036/- had been ordered to be confiscated but there was not even an iota of evidence that it represented the sale proceeds of the contraband goods. In support of his contention that the statement of a co-accused is inadmissible evidence Shri Shah placed reliance on the decision of the Bombay High Court reported in 1985(2) Bombay C.R. 8499 Gopal Govind Chowgule v. Collector of Customs. Shri Shah stated that in a criminal pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sides and perused the records of the case. 7. The burden of song of the appellant before the Addl. Collector, before the Board and before us has been that there is no legal evidence against the appellant. Therefore, the Addl. Collector committed an error in law in imposing personal penalty. His contention has been that the statement of his which contained fatal admissions is not voluntary as it was secured by inducement, duress, coercion and threat. Further, in view of the retraction of the said statement unless there is independent corroboration in material particulars, the statement cannot be made use of. It was also urged that excepting the statement of two others co-accused there was no other evidence either documentary or oral or ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sides the statement of the appellant there are statements of other two persons who had also implicated the appellant. The contention of Shri Shah that the other two persons are co-accused and therefore their statement is not admissible is not correct in law. In an adjudication proceeding they cannot be treated as co-accused. At best, they would stand as accomplices. It is not the law that the evidence of the accomplices is inadmissible. Prudence requires corroboration of an accomplice s evidence. The corroboration is provided by the appellant himself. Therefore, we see no infirmity in the order of confiscation and the penalty passed by the Addl. Collector and confirmed by the Board, and uphold the order of confiscation of the gold. 8. So ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
