9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (10) TMI 482X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d from Dubai 115 bags of contraband silver which it had transferred to another vessel at a point between Khanderi and Thal. Koli said that this was done at the instance of Baliram Thakur, the appellant. The officers located the other vessel and seized it. In three statements recorded on 13-7-1992, 15-7-1992 and 21-7-1992 Koli gave the details of the carriage of silver from Dubai and the transfer to the other vessel. He gave details of the sailing of the vessel etc. and he clearly and categorically named the appellant as a person whose instance carried the ingots. He also identified the photograph of the appellant. The officers also recorded the statement of Kisan Bama Koli who had been named by Mohan Koli as the person who asked him to guar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould not be applied to the facts of this case. This is a later decision than Haricharan Kurmi and Another v. State of Bihar. Any Tribunal decision contrary to this cannot be considered good law. 4. It is next contended that Mohan Koli retracted the statements made in his statement and would therefore, reliance on his statement is not proper. Mohan Koli s statements were recorded on 14th, 15th and 21st July 1992. He was arrested on 22nd July and produced before the Magistrate on the next day. On that occasion the Magistrate records the contention raised before him that Koli was illegally detained on 12-7-1992 onwards but does not proceed to act further upon it. He has recorded that if the accused was wrongfully detained he may take appropr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ention. 6. We also fail to see the relevance to the Tribunal decision in K. Baburao and Others. There the Tribunal found that there was reason to conclude that the appellant before it was kept in unofficial custody during the period when his statements were recorded and therefore, the statements were not to be relied upon as being voluntary. 7. It is next contended that although the appellant was available to the Customs Officers from 13-11-1992 and 17-11-1992 and thereafter he was not interrogated or his statement recorded. We fail to see the significance of this contention. The appellant would either have denied or accepted the version of Mohan Koli or declined to say anything. If he denied it would be a statement against Mohan Koli t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e confessional statement of co-accused may not be used without corroboration against another accused or the retracted statement may not be used against a retracted confession. The first issue, has to be decided in the light of the Supreme Court judgment in Naresh J. Sukhawani v. U.O.I. - 1996 (83) E.L.T. 258 and the second does not arise in these proceedings. 9. The departmental representative points out there is corroboration to some extent the statement of Mohan Koli, the statement of Kishan that the appellant had engaged a vessel for the purpose of carrying contraband 10. In our view, therefore, the evidence in the present case is sufficient to come to the conclusion that the appellant was liable for penalty under Section 112. While ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
