1988 (11) TMI 350 - HC - Indian Laws

Court Upholds Voluntary Statements Under FERA, Allows Use in Proceedings

Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate Versus Peer Mohamed Ali Jinnah

The court concluded that the statements obtained under Section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) were voluntary and admissible, rejecting ... - Issues Involved:1. Voluntariness of statements obtained under Section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA).2. Allegations of coercion, duress, and threats during the recording of statements.3. Admissibility and relevance of retracted statements.4. Applicability of Section 24 of the Evidence Act to statements made under FERA.5. Equating Customs Officers and FERA authorities to police officers.6. Procedural safeguards under FERA and their compliance with constitutional rights.7. Impact of Section 138-B of the Customs Act on statements under FERA.Detailed Analysis:1. Voluntariness of Statements:The respondents argued that the statements recorded on 12-5-1987 and 4-6-1987 were involuntary, obtained under duress, and coercion. They claimed they were forcibly taken to the Enforcement Directorate's office and compelled to write false statements. The court initially accepted these claims, leading to the issuance of a writ of mandamus restraining the use of these statements in any proceedings under FERA or other Acts.2. Allegations of Coercion, Duress, and Threats:The respondents alleged that they were kept in separate rooms, denied elementary facilities, and compelled to write statements out of office hours. They sent letters to the Directorate of Enforcement retracting their statements, claiming they were obtained under torture and threat. However, the court found these allegations to be embellishments made at a later stage and not supported by initial complaints or affidavits.3. Admissibility and Relevance of Retracted Statements:The respondents contended that retracted statements could not be used against them. The court noted that if a statement is shown to be voluntary, it is relevant and admissible. The court concluded that the statements were not obtained under coercion, thus rejecting the argument that they were inadmissible.4. Applicability of Section 24 of the Evidence Act:The respondents argued that their statements were hit by Section 24 of the Evidence Act, making them inadmissible. The court held that Section 24 applies to criminal proceedings and accused persons. Since the respondents were not standing as accused persons in a criminal proceeding, Section 24 did not apply. The court also concluded that the statements were not obtained through inducement, threat, or promise.5. Equating Customs Officers and FERA Authorities to Police Officers:The court referred to various Supreme Court decisions, including State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram and Badaku Joti Savant v. State of Mysore, to conclude that Customs Officers and FERA authorities are not police officers within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, statements recorded by them are not hit by Section 25.6. Procedural Safeguards under FERA:The respondents argued that the absence of rules under Section 79(2)(c) of FERA prescribing the manner of inquiry affected their personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court held that such arguments were unrelated to the present case and could be raised in appropriate proceedings if initiated under FERA or the Customs Act.7. Impact of Section 138-B of the Customs Act:The respondents contended that statements obtained under Sections 39 and 40 of FERA should be inadmissible, similar to the provisions under Section 138-B of the Customs Act. The court rejected this argument, noting that proceedings under FERA are governed by the Indian Evidence Act, and the admissibility of statements is authorized by statute.Conclusion:The court set aside the order of the learned single Judge, concluding that the statements were voluntary and could be used in proceedings under FERA or other Acts. The appeals were allowed with costs, and the respondents' request for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was refused. The court also declined to suspend the operation of the order.