Admissibility of customs confession under Section 108 upheld; conviction sustained and imprisonment reduced on mitigating facts.

Voluntary statements recorded by customs officers under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 were held admissible because customs officers are not police officers for Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and the record showed no threat, inducement or coercion. The conviction under Section 135 was upheld since the confession was corroborated by recovery of gold biscuits and the retraction was made only at the Section 313 CrPC stage. On sentence, mitigating factors including the small quantity of gold, delay, prolonged trial and part-implementation of the sentence justified reduction of substantive imprisonment from three years to two years, while the fine was left unchanged.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the confessional statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 were admissible and could sustain conviction under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962; and (ii) whether the sentence required reduction on the facts of the case.

Issue (i): whether the confessional statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 were admissible and could sustain conviction under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: Statements recorded by customs officers are not hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 because customs officers are not police officers for that purpose. A voluntary statement made to such an officer is admissible, and the Court applied the settled view of the larger Benches that such statements can be relied upon when made without threat, inducement or coercion. The record showed no evidence of torture or duress, the statements themselves stated that they were made voluntarily, and the retraction came at the stage of the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The recovery of gold biscuits also corroborated the confession.

Conclusion: The confessional statements were admissible and the conviction under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 was upheld.

Issue (ii): whether the sentence required reduction on the facts of the case.

Analysis: The Court took into account the small quantity of gold, the long lapse of time, the prolonged trial, and the period of sentence already undergone as mitigating factors. On that basis, interference with the quantum of sentence was considered appropriate while maintaining the conviction and the fine.

Conclusion: The sentence was reduced from three years to two years, with the fine left unchanged.

Final Conclusion: The conviction was maintained, but the substantive imprisonment was reduced in view of the mitigating circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi: A voluntary confession made before a customs officer under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 is admissible and may form the basis of conviction, and a delayed retraction does not by itself displace such evidence when supported by recovery and absence of coercion.

---