Section 108 statements and proof of conscious possession were found insufficient to sustain customs prosecution.

Statements purportedly recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act were treated as inadmissible because the record did not show they were recorded by a Gazetted Officer of Customs, nor identify the officers who recorded them or establish their eligibility. Once excluded, there was no reliable material to prove that the respondents, described as manual servants on the vessel, knew the nature of the packages or had conscious possession of goods meant for unlawful import. As knowledge was an essential ingredient of the offences, the prosecution case could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the statements recorded from the accused under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 were admissible in evidence, and whether, in their absence, the prosecution had proved the requisite knowledge or conscious possession to sustain the charges against the respondents.

Analysis: The prosecution relied mainly on the statements said to have been recorded under Section 108, but the record did not show that they were recorded by a Gazetted Officer of Customs as required. The evidence also failed to identify the officers who actually recorded the statements or to establish their eligibility to do so. Once those statements were excluded, there remained no reliable material to show that the respondents, who were treated as mere manual servants on the vessel, knew the nature of the packages or had conscious possession of goods intended for unlawful import. As knowledge was an essential ingredient of the offences charged, the prosecution case against these respondents could not stand.

Conclusion: The statements under Section 108 were not admissible, and the prosecution failed to prove the requisite knowledge or conscious possession. The appeal against the respondents was dismissed.

---