TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 were admissible and voluntary, and whether conviction could rest on such statements along with other evidence; (ii) whether the revisional court should interfere with concurrent findings of the courts below.
Issue (i): Whether statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 were admissible and voluntary, and whether conviction could rest on such statements along with other evidence.
Analysis: Statements recorded by Customs officers under Section 108 are admissible in evidence, but their incriminating portions must be tested for voluntariness and for any vitiating factor under Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. A co-accused's statement is not to be treated as the sole foundation of guilt in isolation, but where the statements lead to recovery of contraband, seizure material, panchnamas, and other corroborative evidence, the combined evidence can sustain conviction. The plea of coercion or duress was not supported by reliable material, and the record did not establish that the statements were involuntary.
Conclusion: The statements under Section 108 were held to be admissible and capable of being relied upon with corroborative evidence; the challenge to conviction on that ground failed.
Issue (ii): Whether the revisional court should interfere with concurrent findings of the courts below.
Analysis: Revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is supervisory and is not to be exercised as if it were a second appeal. Interference is warranted only in exceptional cases involving manifest illegality or gross miscarriage of justice. As the courts below had concurrently appreciated the evidence and no perversity or miscarriage of justice was shown, reappreciation of evidence was impermissible.
Conclusion: No revisional interference was warranted; the concurrent findings were sustained.
Final Conclusion: The convictions were maintained and the revision applications were dismissed, with the Court declining to disturb the concurrent findings of guilt.
Ratio Decidendi: A voluntary statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 is admissible and may sustain conviction when supported by corroborative circumstances, and concurrent findings will not be disturbed in revision absent manifest illegality or gross miscarriage of justice.
TaxTMI 
