Section 108 customs statements and seizure proof need independent, reliable evidence; mechanical sanction and weak gold origin proof fail.

A conviction under the Customs Act cannot rest on a Section 108 statement recorded after arrest where the accused promptly retracts it, because such a statement is not safely voluntary. The prosecution must also independently prove search, recovery and seizure through reliable evidence; interpolated notice, non-examination of key witnesses, and inconsistencies in interception and recovery undermine that proof. Sanction for prosecution is invalid if the authority grants it mechanically without application of mind to the material on record. Proof of testing, valuation and foreign origin of seized gold must likewise be supported by competent and reliable evidence; absent that, the prosecution case remains unproved.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 was voluntary and could be relied upon as the sole basis for conviction; (ii) Whether the alleged search, recovery and seizure of gold were duly proved, including service of notice under Section 102 of the Customs Act, 1962; (iii) Whether the sanction for prosecution under Section 137 of the Customs Act, 1962 was validly granted; (iv) Whether the prosecution satisfactorily proved the testing, valuation and foreign origin of the recovered gold.

Issue (i): Whether the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 was voluntary and could be relied upon as the sole basis for conviction.

Analysis: The statement was recorded after arrest, the arrest timing preceded the recording of the statement, and the accused had retracted at the earliest opportunity. In those circumstances, the statement could not be treated as a voluntary admission. A statement under Section 108 is admissible, but it cannot by itself sustain conviction when the surrounding circumstances show compulsion and immediate retraction.

Conclusion: The statement under Section 108 could not be safely relied upon against the accused.

Issue (ii): Whether the alleged search, recovery and seizure of gold were duly proved, including service of notice under Section 102 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The notice bore interpolation in the date, creating doubt about whether it was served before the search. The panch witnesses were not examined, and the intercepting officer was also not produced. The evidence of the recovery witness was inconsistent on material particulars, including the manner of interception and the place where the gold was found. These deficiencies went to the root of the prosecution case.

Conclusion: The alleged search and recovery were not proved satisfactorily.

Issue (iii): Whether the sanction for prosecution under Section 137 of the Customs Act, 1962 was validly granted.

Analysis: The record did not show application of mind by the sanctioning authority to the material placed before it. The sanction appeared to have been granted mechanically without proper scrutiny of the complaint and supporting documents. Since sanction is mandatory for cognizance of offences under the relevant provisions, such non-application of mind was fatal.

Conclusion: The sanction for prosecution was held to be invalid in the facts of the case.

Issue (iv): Whether the prosecution satisfactorily proved the testing, valuation and foreign origin of the recovered gold.

Analysis: The prosecution did not establish the competence of the person who tested the gold, the method adopted for testing, or the reliability of the certificate prepared for valuation. The evidence also did not satisfactorily prove foreign origin merely from markings, and the valuation was unsupported by adequate market evidence. The absence of reliable proof on these aspects further weakened the prosecution case.

Conclusion: The prosecution failed to prove the testing, valuation and foreign origin of the gold to the required standard.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal was found to be supported by multiple evidentiary and procedural defects, and no interference was warranted.

Ratio Decidendi: A conviction based on a Section 108 statement cannot stand where the statement is recorded after arrest and is promptly retracted, and the prosecution must independently prove recovery, lawful procedure, and valid sanction with reliable evidence.

---