1995 (11) TMI 106 - SC - Customs

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

SC upheld the confiscation of foreign currency and imposition of penalty for unlawful export of foreign exchange, finding that statements recorded by ... Admissibility of statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act as substantive evidence - use of co-accused statement as corroborative evidence under Section 30 of the Evidence Act - confiscation and penalty under the Customs ActAdmissibility of statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act as substantive evidence - use of co-accused statement as corroborative evidence under Section 30 of the Evidence Act - confiscation and penalty under the Customs Act - Whether the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act and related material suffice to support confiscation of foreign exchange and imposition of penalty on the petitioner. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that a statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, though not a Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement, constitutes material evidence collected by Customs officials and may be used to connect an accused with a contravention under the Customs Act. While the statement of a co-accused may ordinarily be admissible only to corroborate other evidence under Section 30 of the Evidence Act, it may nevertheless be relied upon as substantive material where the statement, taken with intrinsic material (such as photographs and other corroborative items), inculpates both the declarant and the accused. Applying this principle, the revisional authority and the High Court were justified in regarding the statement of Dudani together with the intrinsic material as establishing the petitioner's involvement in passing off foreign currency out of India, thereby validating the order of confiscation and the penalty imposed. The Court found no illegality or reason to reduce the fine.The confiscation and penalty were upheld; the statement under Section 108 and the intrinsic material were held sufficient to connect the petitioner with the contravention.Final Conclusion: Special leave petition dismissed; the orders of confiscation and penalty under the Customs Act were affirmed by the Court. 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.