9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (9) TMI 440X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ench confirmed the order of confiscation of gold and Indian currency stated to be belonging to Akberali Mohamed Hussain Pardawala, the earlier appellant imposed a penalty on him. The Bench noted that the appellant had made a confessional statement with regard to the gold and to the effect that the currency was sale proceeds of an earlier consignment of gold. It did not accept the plea that the statement could be disregarded because it was retracted. It also considered, but did not accept the plea that money acquired was through legitimate sources. 4. The Advocate for the applicant stated that he was not pressing the first question. The questions for consideration are the following : (a) Is it permissible under law to put a confessional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the appellant (accused) made through the Advocate in an application made before the Court can be criticised as an after thought or referred as being made under legal advice? (h) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the fact of the continuous detention and custody of the appellant (accused) for a period of 3 days from 14-2-1991 to 17-2-1991 is it permissible to hold that the statement were voluntary? We do not propose to deal with the questions in the order in which they have been framed. 5. Question at serial (c) does not arise out of the order, because the Bench did not confirm the confiscation of currency on the ground that the appellant did not explain how he acquired the currency. 6. Question at ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a large number of the judgements of the Supreme Court, High Courts and this Tribunal in support of his contention that it is not permissible to rely on the retracted confession which is not corroborated in material particulars. The Bench considered in para 11 of its order the contention that statement of the applicant could not be accepted as it has been retracted. It had noted that while the statements were recorded between 15 and 17-2-1991 the applicant did not retract the statement on 18-2-1991 when he was produced before the Magistrate and also did not complain of any ill-treatment or unlawful detention. The bail application dated 21-2-1991, which cast doubts on the voluntary nature of the statement was signed not by the applicant, but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
