Accomplice evidence needs reliable corroboration; Section 138B of the Customs Act applies retrospectively as a procedural rule.

Acquittal cannot be reversed on accomplice evidence unless the testimony is reliable and corroborated in material particulars; hostile or retracted statements and slender circumstantial material such as recovered cash, documents, telephone numbers, and diary entries were found insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, so the acquittal was maintained. Section 138B of the Customs Act was treated as a procedural provision capable of retrospective operation, so statements recorded before Customs officers remained admissible despite the offence predating the provision's introduction, but that procedural applicability did not cure the prosecution's evidentiary deficiencies.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the acquittal of the accused could be reversed on the basis of accomplice testimony, hostile or retracted statements, and the surrounding circumstances relied upon by the prosecution. (ii) Whether Section 138B of the Customs Act could be applied to statements recorded in relation to an offence committed before its introduction.

Issue (i): Whether the acquittal of the accused could be reversed on the basis of accomplice testimony, hostile or retracted statements, and the surrounding circumstances relied upon by the prosecution.

Analysis: The Court held that accomplice evidence must satisfy the test of reliability and also receive corroboration in material particulars. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, including the recovery of cash, documents, telephone numbers, and diary entries, were found too slender or inconclusive to establish that the respondents were the masterminds or that the prosecution version was proved beyond reasonable doubt. The hostile turn of important witnesses and the absence of dependable corroboration weakened the prosecution case. As regards the first consignment, the material was held insufficient to justify interference with the trial court's view.

Conclusion: The acquittal was upheld on this issue and the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 138B of the Customs Act could be applied to statements recorded in relation to an offence committed before its introduction.

Analysis: The Court held that the provision introduced a procedural rule and that procedural laws may operate retrospectively. Accordingly, the statements recorded before Customs officers were treated as relevant and capable of being relied upon in the prosecution, though that did not by itself cure the deficiencies in proof on the facts of the case.

Conclusion: Section 138B was held applicable retrospectively as a procedural provision.

Final Conclusion: The appeal did not succeed because the prosecution evidence was insufficient to dislodge the acquittal, even though the procedural provision concerning statements before Customs officers was held applicable.

Ratio Decidendi: Accomplice evidence can be acted upon only when it is trustworthy and corroborated in material particulars, and procedural provisions may operate retrospectively unless the statute clearly indicates otherwise.

---