Mandatory personal-search safeguards and corroboration of retracted confessions can determine the legality of customs prosecutions.

Failure to apprise a person searched of the statutory right to be produced before the nearest gazetted customs officer or magistrate before a personal search renders the search illegal, because the safeguard must be communicated clearly and in advance to be meaningful. A statement recorded by customs authorities may be admissible, but where it is promptly retracted and surrounding circumstances suggest coercion, it requires close scrutiny and independent corroboration; without reliable corroboration, it cannot safely sustain conviction. The accompanying medical and witness evidence in the text supported involuntariness and non-support of seizure, so the acquittal was treated as a proper view and left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether non-compliance with the safeguard of informing the person searched of the right under Section 102 of the Customs Act, 1962 vitiated the search and seizure; (ii) Whether the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 could sustain conviction in the absence of independent corroboration, particularly when retracted as involuntary.

Issue (i): Whether non-compliance with the safeguard of informing the person searched of the right under Section 102 of the Customs Act, 1962 vitiated the search and seizure.

Analysis: The statutory protection under Section 102 is intended to ensure a fair and credible personal search by enabling the suspect to require production before the nearest gazetted officer of customs or a magistrate. The right must be communicated clearly and before the search, so that it can be meaningfully exercised. The record did not show that the accused was apprised of this right, and the prosecution witnesses did not speak to any such communication. The search and seizure of gold from the person of the accused therefore lacked the mandatory procedural safeguard and could not be treated as a legal search.

Conclusion: The search and seizure were illegal for non-compliance with Section 102 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue (ii): Whether the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 could sustain conviction in the absence of independent corroboration, particularly when retracted as involuntary.

Analysis: A statement under Section 108 is admissible, but where it is retracted and the surrounding circumstances indicate coercion, it must be specially scrutinised for voluntariness and truthfulness. The accused had promptly retracted the statement and alleged assault, and the medical record supported physical trauma. The panch witnesses did not support the seizure, and there was no independent corroboration of the alleged confession. In such circumstances, the statement could not safely form the sole basis for conviction, and the trial court's view that the prosecution failed to prove guilt was a possible and proper one. The appellate court also had to respect the reinforced presumption of innocence following acquittal.

Conclusion: The statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 was not a safe basis for conviction and the acquittal was not liable to be disturbed.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution failed to establish a lawful search or reliable corroborated confession, and the order of acquittal was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute confers a mandatory personal-search safeguard, failure to apprise the suspect of that right vitiates the search, and a retracted confession under customs law cannot sustain conviction without independent and reliable corroboration.

---