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 any irregularity in the arrest of the accused by the police vitiated the subsequent trial on a customs complaint. (ii) Whether the recovery evidence, the accused's statement before customs authorities, and the surrounding circumstances established possession of smuggled gold and the offence under the customs and defence rules.
Issue (i): Whether any irregularity in the arrest of the accused by the police vitiated the subsequent trial on a customs complaint.
Analysis: The arrest and seizure were treated as matters of procedure. Even if the police officer had no power to arrest under Section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused was subsequently brought before the Court on a valid complaint, and the defect in arrest did not affect jurisdiction. The Court also distinguished cases where the proceedings themselves were without proper complaint or cognizance. The governing principle applied was that an irregularity in investigation or arrest does not, by itself, invalidate a trial otherwise properly instituted.
Conclusion: The alleged illegality in arrest did not vitiate the trial or conviction.
Issue (ii): Whether the recovery evidence, the accused's statement before customs authorities, and the surrounding circumstances established possession of smuggled gold and the offence under the customs and defence rules.
Analysis: The Court accepted the testimony of the police witness and the supporting witness who admitted the accused's presence, and rejected the defence version as unconvincing. It held that the gold bars were recovered from the coat in the bedding in the accused's possession and control. The statement made by the accused before customs authorities was treated as an admissible admission because a customs officer is not a police officer for the purpose of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The evidence also established the foreign character of the gold and the statutory prohibition against its possession and dealing.
Conclusion: The offence under Section 135(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Rule 126P(ii) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 was proved.
Final Conclusion: The acquittal was set aside, the accused was convicted, and the prosecution version was accepted on the evidence of recovery, admission, and statutory prohibition.
Ratio Decidendi: A procedural irregularity in arrest does not vitiate a trial validly instituted on complaint, and an accused's statement before a customs officer is admissible as an admission because such officer is not a police officer for the purpose of the exclusionary rule in the Evidence Act.
TaxTMI 
