Co-accused statements alone cannot sustain process or charge without independent corroborative evidence in customs-linked prosecution.

A co-accused's statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act could not, without independent corroborative material, sustain criminal process or a charge against another accused. Surrounding facts such as travel details, diary entries and telephone numbers created suspicion only and did not amount to evidence sufficient for prosecution. The court applied the principle under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act that a co-accused's confession may be considered only with other evidence and cannot, by itself, found conviction; the same reasoning governed the stage of process and discharge. The accused's discharge under Section 245(2) CrPC was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a complaint for offences under the Customs Act, the Gold (Control) Act and the Indian Penal Code could sustain criminal process or charge where the material against the accused consisted only of the statement of a co-accused recorded by the Customs Authorities under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and no independent evidence was available.

Analysis: The complaint against the discharged accused was founded on the statement of the principal accused recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, together with circumstances such as travel particulars, diary entries and telephone numbers. The Court held that these surrounding facts created, at best, suspicion, but did not amount to independent material capable of supporting process or charge. The governing principle applied was that a confession or statement of one accused against a co-accused cannot be the foundation of prosecution; under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, such a statement may only be taken into consideration along with other evidence and cannot, by itself, sustain conviction. The same principle was treated as relevant at the stage of issuing process and considering discharge.

Conclusion: The discharge of the accused under Section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was upheld because there was no independent material to proceed against them apart from the co-accused's statement.

Final Conclusion: The revision was unsuccessful and the order discharging the accused was confirmed, leaving no basis to continue the prosecution against them on the existing material.

Ratio Decidendi: A co-accused's statement recorded by Customs Authorities cannot, without independent corroborative evidence, constitute the sole foundation for issuing process or framing charge against another accused.

---