TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the statement of a co-accused recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act could be treated as admissible under section 138-B of the Customs Act and used as the sole basis for framing a charge against another accused.
Analysis: Section 138-B applies to statements made before a gazetted customs officer only when the maker is dead, cannot be found, is incapable of giving evidence, is kept out of the way by the adverse party, or is examined and the statement is admitted in the interests of justice. A person who is himself an accused in the same trial is not a person incapable of giving evidence within the meaning of that provision. The statement of a co-accused remains, at best, a weak piece of evidence and cannot by itself be the foundation of criminal liability. It can be used, if at all, only after other independent evidence establishes a prima facie case and only for limited corroborative support. A co-accused's confession, unsupported by any other material, does not justify presuming that the accused has committed an offence for the purpose of framing charge.
Conclusion: The co-accused's statement was not admissible under section 138-B of the Customs Act against the petitioner and could not sustain the charge; the order framing charge was unsustainable and the petitioner was entitled to discharge.
TaxTMI 
