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 the appellant was a person accused of an offence so as to attract Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and exclude the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962; (ii) whether the statement was inadmissible under Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as a confession obtained by inducement, threat or compulsion; and (iii) whether the proved facts were sufficient to sustain conviction under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 despite absence of the statutory presumption under Section 123.
Issue (i): whether the appellant was a person accused of an offence so as to attract Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and exclude the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962
Analysis: The protection against testimonial compulsion applies only where there is a formal accusation of an offence that may ordinarily lead to prosecution. A customs enquiry or arrest for the purpose of investigation and seizure does not by itself make the person an accused. The appellant was formally accused only when the customs complaint was filed, not when his statement was recorded under Section 108.
Conclusion: Article 20(3) did not apply, and the statement was not excluded on that ground.
Issue (ii): whether the statement was inadmissible under Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as a confession obtained by inducement, threat or compulsion
Analysis: Section 24 applies only to a confession made by an accused person to a person in authority, and only when it is caused by inducement, threat or promise relating to the charge. The statement was not a confession because it was partly exculpatory and did not admit all elements of the offence. No inducement or threat from a person in authority was proved, and the statutory duty to speak truthfully under customs law did not amount to the kind of threat contemplated by Section 24.
Conclusion: Section 24 did not bar admission of the statement, and it was admissible as an admission under Section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Issue (iii): whether the proved facts were sufficient to sustain conviction under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 despite absence of the statutory presumption under Section 123
Analysis: Even without the statutory presumption, the surrounding circumstances and the admissions in the statement established the surreptitious import and knowing involvement of the appellant in the movement and custody of contraband goods. The evidence of seizure, concealment, foreign origin, absence of duty payment, and the appellant's conduct cumulatively supported the statutory ingredients of the offence.
Conclusion: The conviction under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable.
Final Conclusion: The statement recorded by customs was held admissible, the constitutional and evidentiary objections failed, and the conviction for customs offences was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: A statement recorded in a customs enquiry is not hit by Article 20(3) unless the maker is formally accused of the offence in question, and Section 24 of the Evidence Act excludes only a true confession obtained by inducement, threat or promise from a person in authority.
TaxTMI 
