Corroborated evidence and a retracted Customs statement upheld convictions, while the jurisdiction challenge to the investigation failed.

Corroborated evidence, including bank officials' testimony, seized materials, chemical analysis and a Section 108 Customs Act statement, was relied on to sustain convictions for conspiracy, forgery, cheating and Customs offences after forged bank realisation certificates were used to obtain ineligible DEPB benefits and the exported goods were found not to be genuine printing ink. The retraction of the Section 108 statement did not displace the prosecution case because it was supported by independent evidence, and the revisional court would not reappreciate concurrent findings absent perversity. The objection that the CBI lacked jurisdiction was rejected because the investigation concerned financial and other interests of the Central Government.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the conviction for conspiracy, forgery, cheating and Customs offences was sustainable on the evidence, including the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the other corroborative materials. (ii) Whether the contention that the Central Bureau of Investigation lacked jurisdiction to investigate the Customs-related offences was tenable.

Issue (i): Whether the conviction for conspiracy, forgery, cheating and Customs offences was sustainable on the evidence, including the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the other corroborative materials.

Analysis: The evidence of the bank officials, the employees connected with the transactions, the chemical analysis report, and the materials seized from the premises established that forged bank realization certificates were used to obtain ineligible DEPB benefits and that the exported goods were not genuine printing ink. The Court also held that the retraction of the statement recorded under Section 108 did not displace the prosecution case, particularly when the accused did not complain before the Magistrate at the time of remand and when the confession was corroborated by independent evidence. The revisional court declined to reappreciate evidence in the absence of perversity in the findings of the courts below.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were upheld on merits.

Issue (ii): Whether the contention that the Central Bureau of Investigation lacked jurisdiction to investigate the Customs-related offences was tenable.

Analysis: The Court accepted the material placed to show that the investigation related to financial and other interests of the Central Government and held that the objection to the investigating agency's jurisdiction could not be sustained. The argument that only Customs officers could proceed was rejected in the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional objection was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The criminal revision cases failed, the concurrent findings of guilt were affirmed, and the convictions and sentences of the accused were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In revisional jurisdiction, concurrent findings based on corroborated evidence and corroborative materials will not be interfered with absent perversity, and a retracted confession does not by itself dislodge a prosecution case supported by independent evidence.

---