Customs statements under section 108 remain admissible without section 164 safeguards if voluntary and supported by material evidence.

A statement recorded by Customs authorities under section 108 of the Customs Act is not inadmissible merely because the safeguards of section 164 CrPC were not followed; its admissibility depends on voluntariness under evidence law. The claim that the statements were recorded under detention, threat or duress was rejected because it was not supported by medical or other material showing coercion. In clandestine smuggling matters, circumstantial evidence may establish the link between the intercepted dhow and the trawler, and concurrent findings based on material evidence will not be disturbed in revision absent perversity. The convictions and sentences were maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a statement recorded by Customs authorities under section 108 of the Customs Act required the safeguards of section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and was inadmissible for want of such safeguards; (ii) whether the applicants' statements recorded under section 108 were involuntary on account of alleged detention, threat and duress; and (iii) whether the link between the Arab dhow and the trawler had been established so as to sustain the convictions.

Issue (i): Whether a statement recorded by Customs authorities under section 108 of the Customs Act required the safeguards of section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and was inadmissible for want of such safeguards.

Analysis: The statement under section 108 is not equated with a confession recorded by a Magistrate under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. A Customs officer is not a police officer for this purpose, and the admissibility of such a statement is governed by the principles relating to confessions and voluntariness under the Indian Evidence Act. The absence of the statutory warnings contemplated by section 164 does not by itself render a section 108 statement inadmissible, though such statements require close scrutiny.

Conclusion: The contention was rejected and the statement under section 108 was not held inadmissible for want of section 164 safeguards.

Issue (ii): Whether the applicants' statements recorded under section 108 were involuntary on account of alleged detention, threat and duress.

Analysis: The plea of detention and coercion was not substantiated by proved medical evidence or material showing injuries. The evidence on record indicated that the applicants were called for investigation and that their movements were not shown to have been so restricted as to amount to arrest. In revisional jurisdiction, concurrent findings based on material evidence are not disturbed unless perversity or miscarriage of justice is shown.

Conclusion: The contention of involuntariness was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the link between the Arab dhow and the trawler had been established so as to sustain the convictions.

Analysis: In clandestine smuggling cases, direct evidence is often unavailable and the conclusion may rest on surrounding circumstances. The recovery of the silver ingots from the intercepted dhow and the presence of the trawler poised to transport them provided sufficient circumstantial linkage. The concurrent findings of the courts below were not perverse.

Conclusion: The link was held to be established and the finding was upheld.

Final Conclusion: No ground for interference in revision was made out, and the convictions and sentences were maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: A statement recorded by Customs authorities under section 108 of the Customs Act is not rendered inadmissible merely because the safeguards of section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were not followed, and concurrent findings sustained by material evidence will not be disturbed in revision absent perversity.

---