2001 (10) TMI 418

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... om off-coast of Goa up the Mandovi river to a spot near Old Goa where they were unloaded on to trucks. She has ordered confiscation of the trawlers, giving the owner an option to redeem them on fine and imposing penalty on both these appellants. 2. The contentions of the common counsel for the appellants are these. The Commissioner has not relied upon any evidence other than admission in the statement of Thomas D Souza and Estevan D Souza. These statements were recorded at night and therefore not admissible in law. They were also retracted immediately and therefore, the admissions made in them cannot be used against them without corroboration, which is lacking. He contends alternatively that there is no evidence to prove that the goods wh .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for the claim that the statements were recorded late at night. It would not be unreasonable to conclude that the recording of the statement would have started slowly after 7 p.m. after they appeared before the officers. Apart from this, I find it difficult to accept the proposition that any statement recorded at night is illegally. There is no provision in law prohibiting recording a statement at night. In this day and age, when much of every activity legal and illegal takes place at night, it defies one s imagination to say that a statement recorded at night is inadmissible. No reason in any event is given by the counsel for the appellant for attributing illegality to such a statement. He says that at night the appellant would not have be .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... twithstanding that their foreign origin was not established. This also disposes of the claim that the seizure of the goods was made in Maharashtra, outside the jurisdiction of Goa. Even if the goods had been seized at all, it would be liable to confiscation. 7. I am also not able to agree that the order of the Additional Commissioner suffers from any infirmity because it was passed in proceedings separately from those in which confiscation of goods was ordered. Although this would not be desirable, there is nothing in law prohibiting such a course of action. The order of the Additional Commissioner in my view is well reasoned. 8. I therefore confirm the confiscation of Shree Ganesh. Having regard to the value of the goods worth Rs. 63 l .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X