Customs Act quashing refused where Section 108 statements and co-accused material required trial evaluation.

In a Customs Act prosecution, the HC declined to quash proceedings under Section 482 CrPC because statements recorded under Section 108 were treated as inculpatory admissions, not statements excluded by Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act merely because they were later retracted. The Court held that customs officers are not police officers, so the evidentiary position is different from a police investigation. It further held that the value of co-accused statements and other collected material is a matter for trial, and the quashing court should not prematurely discard them. Interference at the threshold was therefore refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether proceedings for an alleged offence under the Customs Act could be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the basis that the case rested mainly on statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and on retracted confessional material.

Analysis: The statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 were treated as inculpatory admissions and not as statements hit by Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Court noted that customs officers are not police officers and that the applicability of criminal procedure provisions is not the same as in a police investigation. It further held that the effect of the co-accused statements, including their evidentiary value against the petitioner, is a matter for trial. At the stage of quashing, the Court found it premature to discard the materials collected by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence.

Conclusion: The petition for quashing was not maintainable on the materials then available, and interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was declined.

Ratio Decidendi: A proceeding under the Customs Act will not be quashed at the threshold where there are inculpatory statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the evidentiary value of co-accused material remains a matter for trial, especially since customs officers are not police officers and such statements are not excluded by the Evidence Act merely because they are later retracted.

---