Customs body-concealment search under Section 103 and voluntary Section 108 statement upheld; conviction and sentence maintained.

Where customs officers proceed under Section 103 for x-ray screening of suspected concealment inside the body, the safeguards of Section 102 do not apply, because the provisions operate in separate fields; the proceedings were therefore not vitiated and the conviction was sustained. A statement recorded under Section 108 was held admissible without a fresh summons where the person was already before the authorised officer, and the safeguards of Section 164 CrPC were not imported into Customs proceedings. The statement was found voluntary and reliable, so it could be relied on. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment was also upheld, as the prescribed minimum and the manner of concealment justified no reduction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether non-compliance with Section 102 or Section 103 of the Customs Act, 1962 vitiated the search, seizure and conviction; (ii) whether the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 was inadmissible for want of summons or by reason of non-compliance with Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (iii) whether the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for four years was excessive.

Issue (i): Whether non-compliance with Section 102 or Section 103 of the Customs Act, 1962 vitiated the search, seizure and conviction.

Analysis: Section 102 governs a personal search of a suspected person and the right to be taken before a Gazetted Officer of Customs or Magistrate, whereas Section 103 deals with screening or x-ray examination where goods are suspected to be secreted inside the body. The facts showed that the officer proceeded on the basis of x-ray screening because of information that gold had been concealed in the body. The Court held that the two provisions operate in separate fields and that recourse to Section 103 displaced any need to follow Section 102. It further held that once the person admitted that the goods were secreted inside his body and voluntarily submitted to the process, the case fell within Section 103(8), so the procedure under Sections 103(1) to 103(7) was not required.

Conclusion: The proceedings were not vitiated, and the conviction was sustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 was inadmissible for want of summons or by reason of non-compliance with Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The Court held that summons under Section 108 was not necessary where the person was already present before the authorised officer who recorded the statement. It also held that the safeguards applicable to confessions under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are not imported into proceedings under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The statement was found by both courts below to be voluntary, genuine and free from coercion, fraud or undue inducement, and the revisional court declined to interfere with those concurrent findings of fact.

Conclusion: The statement under Section 108 was valid and could be relied upon.

Issue (iii): Whether the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for four years was excessive.

Analysis: The Court noted that Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 itself prescribed a minimum sentence of three years in cases of the relevant gravity, absent special reasons. Considering the value of the gold, the manner of concealment and the mode of commission of the offence, the Court found no justification for leniency or reduction of sentence.

Conclusion: The sentence was not excessive.

Final Conclusion: The revisional challenge failed, the conviction for the customs offence was affirmed, and the sentence was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where customs officers proceed under Section 103 for x-ray screening of suspected body concealment, the safeguards of Section 102 do not apply; and a voluntary statement recorded under Section 108 remains admissible without importing the confession safeguards of Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

---