Co-accused confession has limited evidentiary value and cannot alone sustain criminal liability without independent support.

Statements made to Customs are not excluded merely because the officer is not a police officer and may be relevant if otherwise admissible. The controlling principle, however, is that a co-accused's confession is only weak corroborative material under the Evidence Act and cannot by itself constitute substantive evidence or the sole basis for criminal liability. Suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof. The complaint could proceed only if the trial court found independent material supporting the applicant; if no such material existed, discharge at the threshold was required.

---

---

Issues: Whether a complaint for an offence under the Customs Act could proceed against the applicant when the material against him was primarily a statement or confession of a co-accused made before Customs , and whether such material could be treated as substantive evidence at the threshold.

Analysis: A statement made to Customs is not excluded merely because the Customs officer is not a police officer, and such statements may be admissible if otherwise relevant. But the decisive question is the use that can be made of a co-accused's confession against another person. Under the Evidence Act, a confession of a co-accused is only a piece of weak material that may be taken into consideration for a limited purpose. It cannot, by itself, constitute substantive evidence or the sole foundation of criminal liability. Suspicion, even if strong, cannot replace proof. The trial court, therefore, must examine whether the complaint is supported by material apart from the co-accused statement and not merely by that statement alone.

Conclusion: The complaint was not to be allowed to proceed against the applicant on the basis of the co-accused confession alone, and the trial court was directed to first decide whether any independent material existed; if none existed, the applicant was to be discharged at the threshold.

Final Conclusion: The proceeding was left to continue only after a preliminary determination by the trial court on the availability of independent supporting material, with interim protection granted to the applicant meanwhile.

Ratio Decidendi: A confession of a co-accused cannot be treated as substantive evidence against another accused and can justify further criminal process only when supported by independent material.

---