The Supreme Court has held that voluntary statements recorded by Customs officers under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, may be relied upon as substantive evidence, and can form the basis of liability under the Customs law.

 

A Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta was hearing an appeal filed by two persons convicted in a 1985 smuggling case arising out of Mandvi, Gujarat, involving 777 foreign-made wrist watches and 879 wrist watch straps, allegedly valued at approximately Rs. 2 lakhs. While conscious possession of the seized goods was not specifically attributed to the appellants, the High Court affirmed the conviction primarily on the basis of their confessional statements.

 

Also Read: Landowners Who Authorize Developers To Construct And Sell Flats Cannot Be Held Jointly Liable For Construction Delays : Supreme Court

 

Before the Supreme Court, the appellants questioned whether a conviction could be sustained on the basis of statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, particularly where allegations of coercion had been raised. They submitted that the prosecution's case substantially depended on such statements, and also referred to allegations of custodial torture concerning a co-accused whose statement allegedly led to further recoveries/discoveries.

 

Dismissing the challenge on merits, the judgment authored by Justice Mehta reiterated that statements recorded under Section 108 are admissible as substantive evidence, subject to the requirement that they must be voluntary.

 

Relying on K.I. Pavunny v. Assistant Collector [(1997) 3 SCC 721], the Court observed that such statements are not barred by Sections 24, 30 or 34 of the Evidence Act, and that the burden to prove coercion, inducement or involuntariness lies on the accused.

 

The Court held that Customs authorities are empowered “to collect relevant information and evidence relating to contraventions of the Act, and that such statements, if found to be voluntary, are substantive pieces of evidence capable of being relied upon in support of the prosecution case.”

 

The appellants also argued that, in the absence of adequate corroboration, a conviction could not be sustained merely on confessional material. Rejecting this contention, the Court recorded that the prosecution had, in addition to the statements, adduced corroborative material.

 

Also Read: Legal Profession Is A Service Rooted In Dharma And State Law Officers’ Rights Cannot Be Curtailed By A “Contractual” Label : Punjab And Haryana High Court

 

The Court observed that “the conviction of the appellants was not based merely on confessional statements, but in addition thereto, the prosecution provided tangible corroborative evidence. Therefore, the judgment of conviction did not suffer from perversity or legal infirmity.”

 

Although the Court upheld the conviction, it noted mitigating factors, including the fact that the incident was approximately 40 years old, that the appellants had already served a substantial period of incarceration, and their advanced age. On that basis, the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone.

 

The appeal was accordingly partly allowed to the extent of sentence reduction.

 

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Amar Dave, Sr. Adv. Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AOR Mr. Rishi Maheshwari, Adv. Ms. Anne Mathew, Adv. Mr. Bharat Sood, Adv. Mr. Jai Govind M J, Adv. Mr. Jashan Vir Singh, Adv. Mr. Yadumandan Bansal, Adv. Mr. Anand G, Adv. Mr. Ravi Panwar, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Adv. Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Adv. Ms. Aditi Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Raja Thakre, A.S.G. Mr. G.s. Makker (aor), Adv. Mr. Rohit Khare, Adv. Ms. Medha Pushkarna, Adv. Mr. Diwakar Sharma, Adv. Ms. Mili Baxi, Adv.

 

Case Title: Amad Noormamad Bakali v. The State of Gujarat & Ors.

Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1000 OF 2012

Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta