Retracted customs statement and non-mandatory baggage form can still sustain conviction where voluntary disclosure and recovery are proved.

A retracted statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act may still be relied on if it is found voluntary and truthful, especially where supported by general corroboration; the court treated the statement as admissible on that basis. The absence of Form No. 37 for baggage declaration was held not to be mandatory and did not by itself invalidate the search, seizure, or prosecution where the passenger had been asked to declare the contents and denied carrying anything dutiable. On correcting those errors, the evidence established non-declaration of restricted goods, so the acquittal was set aside and the conviction and sentence were restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the statement recorded from the accused under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 was voluntary and could be relied upon despite retraction; (ii) whether the absence of Form No. 37 for baggage declaration invalidated the seizure or the prosecution case; (iii) whether the order of acquittal called for interference and restoration of conviction.

Issue (i): Whether the statement recorded from the accused under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 was voluntary and could be relied upon despite retraction.

Analysis: A retracted statement under Section 108 is not automatically inadmissible. It may be relied upon if the Court finds it voluntary and truthful, and it may be used with general corroboration. The surrounding circumstances suggested that the statement contained details unlikely to have been fabricated by the officers, and the grounds relied upon by the appellate court for rejecting it were not sufficient to discard it altogether.

Conclusion: The statement under Section 108 was treated as voluntary and reliable, and it could properly be considered against the accused.

Issue (ii): Whether the absence of Form No. 37 for baggage declaration invalidated the seizure or the prosecution case.

Analysis: The form was held not to be a mandatory statutory form under the Customs Act or the delegated rules. The governing instructions and manual provisions were treated as guidelines rather than mandatory requirements. In any event, the evidence showed that the accused was repeatedly asked to declare the contents of the baggage and denied having anything to declare before the concealed jewellery and watches were found.

Conclusion: The omission to supply or fill Form No. 37 did not vitiate the search, seizure, or prosecution.

Issue (iii): Whether the order of acquittal called for interference and restoration of conviction.

Analysis: The appellate court found that the lower appellate court had proceeded on an erroneous view of the declaration procedure and had wrongly discarded material evidence, including the statement under Section 108 and the evidence of search and recovery. Once those findings were corrected, the prosecution case established non-declaration of dutiable and restricted goods and the ingredients of the offences were made out.

Conclusion: The acquittal was set aside and the conviction and sentence were restored.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution succeeded in establishing the offences under the Customs Act and the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, and the original conviction and sentence stood revived.

Ratio Decidendi: A retracted statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 may sustain a conviction if found voluntary and truthful with general corroboration, and non-supply of a baggage declaration form treated only as a guideline does not by itself invalidate a search or defeat the prosecution where the passenger was repeatedly asked to declare the goods.

---