Government upholds customs penalty based on corroborating evidence for possession of gold bars

The Government of India rejected a revision application challenging the penalty imposed under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the petitioner for possession of 100 gold bars. The petitioner argued that the penalty was unjustified as it relied solely on the uncorroborated testimony of a co-accused. However, the Government found the co-accused's testimony credible, supported by the recovery of a similar jacket from the petitioner's room and their past involvement in smuggling. The application was dismissed, emphasizing the significance of corroborating evidence in cases involving smuggling and customs penalties.

---

---

Issues: Smuggling case, Penalty under Customs Act, 1962, Testimony of co-accused, Corroboration of evidence

In this judgment, the Government of India considered a revision application regarding the imposition of a penalty under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the petitioner. The petitioner was found in possession of 100 gold bars, and a jacket similar to the one worn by a co-accused in which the gold bars were concealed was recovered from the petitioner's room. The petitioner's main argument was that the penalty was not based on sufficient evidence as it relied solely on the testimony of the co-accused, which was not corroborated. The petitioner contended that no conviction could be solely based on the uncorroborated testimony of a co-accused.

The Government observed that while quasi-judicial authorities are not bound by the Evidence Act, a conviction based on the uncorroborated testimony of a co-accused is not necessarily bad. However, judicial pronouncements have established a rule of prudence that such testimony should be corroborated in material particulars by independent evidence. In this case, the Government found the co-accused's testimony to be voluntary and natural, with no indication of false implication. The petitioner's admission of friendship with the co-accused further supported the credibility of the testimony. The recovery of a similar jacket from the petitioner's drawer and the past involvement of the petitioner and the co-accused in smuggling activities provided additional corroboration. Therefore, the Government held that the petitioner was liable for the penalty based on the testimony of the co-accused and other evidence on record.

Ultimately, the revision application was rejected, affirming the imposition of the penalty under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The judgment underscores the importance of corroborating evidence, especially when relying on the testimony of a co-accused, in cases involving smuggling activities and penalties under customs laws.

---