9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (3) TMI 120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egitimately. The value of these items was about Rs. 5,42,000/-. A statement of Subhash Sachdeva was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act in which he disclosed that he was approached by one J.S. Pruthi living in AIIMS, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi with an offer to visit Hongkong without incurring any expenditure but in lieu thereof he shall bring certain goods from there. He agreed, upon which said J.S. Pruthi arranged air tickets as well as foreign exchange. This air fare was paid by the present petitioner through a cheque. The foreign currency was also purchased by the petitioner by giving a cheque of Rs. 2,38,165/-. After reaching Hongkong, Subhash Sachdeva was given 12 packets of watch movements and 8 mobile phones by Pruthi and was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as also discovered that the petitioner was earlier also involved in one case regarding smuggling of 300 gold biscuits and one case for smuggling of watch movements. These cases were still pending. 3.Mr. D.C. Mathur, Senior Advocate has vehemently argued that the statement made by the petitioner under Section 108 of the Customs Act cannot be read or relied upon inasmuch as the petitioner was already in custody of the Customs Officers before making statement and his statement was hit by Section 24 of the Evidence Act as it was not a voluntary statement. He further submits that the investigations are already over and there is no chance of the petitioner tampering with the prosecution evidence in any manner as most of the witnesses to be produ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Limited & Others, (supra) in which their Lordships held that inculpatory statement made by a person under Section 108 of the Customs Act has no tinge of inadmissibility if the person while making it is not in police custody, but nonetheless the caution in law is that such a statement should be scrutinised by the Courts in the same manner as confession made by an accused person to any non-police personnel. It was held that such a statement has to pass the tests prescribed in Section 24 of the Evidence Act. This legal preposition is beyond the scope of any challenge, but at this stage while considering a bail application, this Court is not in a position to give a finding as to whether the statements made by the petitioner or his co-accused we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upon a judgment of this Court in Anil Mahajan v. Commissioner of Customs and Another - 2000 III A.D. (Delhi) 369 in which my brother Judge had deeply examined the considerations relevant for grant or refusal of bail and had come to the conclusion that the accused, who was involved in smuggling of synthetic fabrics of the value of over Rs. 1 crore may be released on bail. I have gone through the said judgment. I am in absolute agreement with the legal prepositions propounded by my brother Judge. In the present case, however, the gravity of the allegations against the petitioner gets aggravated for two reasons. Firstly he being a dealer in watches roped co-accused Subhash Sachdeva also in an unlawful activity, through one Pruthi by offering ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
