Framing Charge in Customs Prosecution: Co-accused statements may support a prima facie case and justify trial.

In customs prosecutions, a co-accused's statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act may be treated as admissible material at the stage of framing charge, and the court is not required to conduct a detailed appraisal of its evidentiary value. The Delhi HC held that revisional interference was unwarranted where surrounding circumstances, including non-response to notices, recovery of a visiting card, the nature of the recovery, and the co-accused's absence, were sufficient to support a prima facie case. The order framing charge under Section 135(1)(a) was therefore found neither illegal nor unreasonable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order framing charge under Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 required interference on the ground that the material was scanty and that the statement of the co-accused could not be used against the petitioner.

Analysis: The statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 was treated as admissible material in customs proceedings. The Court noted that there is no absolute bar against using the confession of a co-accused in such matters. At the stage of framing charge, the court is concerned with the existence of material justifying trial, not with a detailed assessment of its probative value. The petitioner's non-response to notices, the recovered visiting card, the nature of the recovery, and the fact that the co-accused had not appeared were treated as sufficient circumstances to support the trial court's view that the matter should proceed.

Conclusion: The charge was held not to suffer from illegality or unreasonableness, and interference was declined.

Ratio Decidendi: In customs prosecutions, a co-accused's statement under Section 108 may be considered at the stage of framing charge, and revisional interference is not warranted where there is some material creating a prima facie case.

---