1995 (11) TMI 106 - SC - Customs

Confiscation and fine for unlawful foreign currency export upheld; Customs-recorded statements admissible versus Section 161 CrPC

NARESH J. SUKHAWANI Versus UNION OF INDIA

SC upheld the confiscation of foreign currency and imposition of penalty for unlawful export of foreign exchange, finding that statements recorded by ... Export foreign exchange out of India - Evidence - legality of the order of confiscation and penalty imposition - HELD THAT:- It must be remembered that the statement made before the Customs officials is not a statement recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Therefore it is a material piece of evidence collected by Customs officials under Section 108 of the Customs Act. That material incriminates the petitioner inculpating him in the contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act. The material can certainly be used to connect the petitioner in the contravention inasmuch as Mr. Dudani's statement clearly inculpates not only himself but also the petitioner. It can, therefore, be used as substantive evidence connecting the petitioner with the contravention by exporting foreign currency out of India. Therefore we do not think that there is any illegality in the order of confiscation of foreign currency and imposition of penalty. There is no ground warranting reduction of fine. The special leave petition is dismissed accordingly. Issues Involved: The judgment involves the confiscation of foreign exchange and imposition of penalty based on statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, the use of co-accused's statement as evidence, and the legality of the order of confiscation and penalty imposition.Confiscation of Foreign Exchange: The Customs officials apprehended individuals involved in attempting to export foreign exchange out of India, leading to the confiscation of the currency and imposition of a penalty. The petitioner challenged the confiscation, which was initially set aside by the Collector but later restored by the Government and affirmed by the High Court.Use of Co-Accused's Statement: The revisional authority considered the statement of Mr. Dudani, a co-accused, as incriminating evidence against the petitioner. The authority concluded that the statement, along with other intrinsic material, established the contravention of passing off foreign currency out of India. However, it is argued that Dudani's statement alone cannot be used as substantive evidence without corroboration from other independent evidence, as per Section 30 of the Evidence Act.Legality of Confiscation and Penalty Imposition: The judgment clarifies that statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, though not under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, are admissible as evidence collected by Customs officials. The material gathered incriminated the petitioner in contravening Customs Act provisions by exporting foreign currency. The court found no illegality in the order of confiscation and penalty imposition, stating that the evidence, including Dudani's statement, connected the petitioner to the contravention.Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, upholding the order of confiscation of foreign currency and the imposition of the penalty, as there was no ground for reducing the fine based on the evidence presented.