Contemporaneous handwritten statement can sustain confiscation of smuggled gold when no prompt coercion complaint is made.

Primary gold seized from the appellant was treated as smuggled goods because his own handwritten statement said it had been brought from Nepal, and the later retraction alleging duress was rejected since no prompt complaint of coercion was made before the Judicial Magistrate and the statement concerned matters within his personal knowledge. The request for cross-examination was also declined because of the long lapse of time since seizure and the likely unavailability of witnesses and records. On that basis, the confiscation of the gold and the personal penalty were sustained, and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confiscation of the seized gold as smuggled goods and the personal penalty were sustainable on the basis of the appellant's recorded statement, and whether cross-examination of witnesses was warranted at the appellate stage.

Analysis: Primary gold was recovered from the appellant's possession, and he had initially stated in his own handwriting that the gold had been brought from Nepal. The subsequent retraction alleging duress and torture was not accepted, as the statement contained details within his personal knowledge and no complaint of coercion was made before the Judicial Magistrate on the next day. The request for cross-examination was also rejected, having regard to the long lapse of time since seizure and the likely unavailability of witnesses and records.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the gold as smuggled goods was upheld, and the appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: The order of confiscation and penalty remained undisturbed, and the appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A contemporaneous statement recorded in the handwriting of the person concerned, if un-retracted by any prompt complaint of coercion and supported by facts within personal knowledge, can be relied upon as evidence to sustain confiscation of smuggled goods.

---