TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter ✕
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 ✕ 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, at the stage of framing of charge, the petitioner was entitled to discharge on the ground that the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 were inadmissible or unreliable and that there was no sufficient material connecting him with the alleged customs offence.
Analysis: At the stage of framing of charge, the truth, veracity and effect of the prosecution material are not to be meticulously assessed; only a strong suspicion founded on the material may justify proceeding to trial. A statement recorded by Customs Officers under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 is admissible in evidence, subject to examination of voluntariness and any vitiating circumstance under the Evidence Act. Mere retraction of such a statement is not enough by itself, and the timing and reason for retraction are relevant. The admissibility or inadmissibility of the co-accused statement under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 could not be conclusively decided at the threshold, and the statement of an independent person also could not be pre-judged at that stage. The Court also held that the absence of a cited witness did not warrant discharge where the prosecution could still take appropriate steps before the trial court.
Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to discharge, and the impugned order framing charge was upheld.
TaxTMI 
