9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 910X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or, Anil Anand, Sub-Inspector, Shram Singh and some other personnels, in the area of Bhikhiwind, on Bhikhwind Amritsar road. The picket party observed a red colour tractor, coming from Bhikhiwind side, being driven by the driver and another person sitting by his side. The tractor was signalled to stop. It was stopped by the driver, about 50 yards away from the place, where the picket had been held. The driver and another person, sitting by his side, alighted from the tractor, and escaped, despite chase, having been given by the aforesaid officials of the Border Security Force. Firing was not resorted to, to avoid civilian causalities. The presence of an independent witness was secured and the tractor was rummaged. After about half an hour, a specially made cavity was found below the steering and behind the meter panel board of the tractor, which resulted into the recovery of 310 gold biscuits of foreign origin bearing foreign marking packed in 31 packets. Panchnama and recovery memo were prepared, at the spot, in the presence of the witnesses. Subsequently, it was found that the tractor belonged to one Gurbachan singh r/o village Naushera Dhalla, who disclosed that one day earlier ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e under Section 135 of the Act. Accordingly, a criminal complaint, was filed against the accused. 3. The accused were summoned to face trial, for the offence, punishable under Section 135 of the Act. Swinder Singh, accused, died, during the pendency of trial and, as such, the proceedings against him stood abated. 4. In pre-charge evidence, the complainant examined Davinder Singh, Inspector Customs, (PW-1) and Kulmohan Singh, Superintendent Customs, (PW-2). Thereafter, the pre-charge evidence was closed. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the pre-charge evidence, the trial Court, found that a prima facie case was made out, for the commission of offence, punishable under Section 135 of the Act, against the accused. Accordingly, the charge was framed against him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed judicial trial. He also stated that he wanted to further cross-examine the witnesses, examined before charge. 6. In the after charge evidence, Davinder Singh, Inspector Customs, (PW-1) and Kulmohan Singh, Superintendent Customs, (PW-2), were further cross-examined, by the accused. The complainant also examined Mange Ram, Inspector. Thereafter, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s officers, under Section 108 of the Act, were legally admissible. He further submitted that the Customs officers are not the Police Officers and, as such, the confessional statements were not hit by the provisions of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. He further submitted that the Courts below were right, in recording conviction, and awarding sentence, to the accused, on the basis of the said statements. He further submitted that the judgments of conviction and the order of sentence, rendered by the Courts below, are legal and valid, and the same deserve to be upheld. 14. The first question, that arises for consideration, is, as to whether, the voluntary confessional statements Ex. PX dated 24-3-1991, and Ex. PY dated 26-3-1991, made by the revision-petitioner, under Section 108 of the Act before the Customs officials, are admissible into evidence or not. In State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram, AIR 1962 (SC) 276, a decision rendered by a three Judge Bench, the Apex Court was called upon to consider whether the Customs Officers to whom the confessional statements were made could be said to be the Police Officers, within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. On behalf of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, as they could not present report, under Section 173 Cr.P.C. 17. In K.I. Pavunny. v. Assistant Collector - 1997 (3) RCR 71 (S.C.) = 1997 (90) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.), a judgment rendered by a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court, it was held that the confessional statement, made before a Customs Officer, was admissible, as he is not a Police Officer, within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, though he is invested with many of the powers, which an officer-incharge of the Police Station exercise, while investigating an offence. It was also held that though a Customs Officer, is a person in authority, within the meaning of Section 24 of the Evidence Act, by reason of statutory compulsion of recording the statement of the accused, pursuant to his appearance, either after issuance of the summons or after his surrender, such statement cannot be characterized to have been obtained, by threat inducement or promise, and the self same statement, is admissible in evidence on the complaint laid by the Customs Officer. 18. In Veera Ibrahim v. The State of Maharashtra, 1976 (2) SCC 302 = 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1590 (S.C.), the appellant was arrested by the Po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 135(a) and Section 135(b) of the Customs Act. In these circumstances, it was held that the said statements were not hit by Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, and Section 25 of the Evidence Act. 19. From the principle of law, laid down in the aforesaid cases, it is clearly evident that the confessional statements made by the accused, before the Customs Officers, under Section 108 of the Act if found to be voluntary would be legally admissible into evidence. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, however, placed reliance on Noor Aga v. State of Punjab and Another, 2008 (3) RCR (Criminal) 633 (S.C.), a decision rendered by two Hon'ble Judges of the Apex Court, in support of his contention, that since the Customs Officers, are Police Officers, confessional statements, made by a person, before them, under Section 108 of the Act, was hit by the provisions of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In view of the principle of law, laid down, in Romesh Chandra Mehta's, Illias's, State of Punjab's and Pavunny's cases (supra), decided by larger Benches of the Apex Court, no help can be drawn from the principle of law, laid down, to the contrary on the same point in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 21. The concurrent findings, recorded by the Courts below, based on the correct appreciation of the cogent, convincing, reliable and trustworthy evidence of Davinder Singh, Inspector Customs, (PW-1), who deposed with regard to the recovery of gold biscuits, aforesaid, from Swinder Singh, (since deceased), who was accompanied by Sucha singh, revision-petitioner, Kulmohan Singh, Superintendent Customs, (PW-2), who also made a similar statement, and Mange Ram, Inspector, (PW-3) of Border Security Force, coupled with the voluntary confessional statements made by the revision-petitioner, under Section 108 of the Act that the accused was guilty of the offence, punishable under Section 135 of the Act, do not suffer from any illegality or perversity. It is settled principle of law, that the Court in its revisional jurisdiction, cannot re-evaluate and re-appreciate the evidence, produced by the parties, until and unless, it comes to the conclusion, that the findings recorded by the Courts below, are perverse or erroneous, on account of misreading of evidence. The careful perusal of the judgments of the Courts below, in context w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
