Revisional interference and corroborated customs evidence upheld conviction where alleged confession and absence of independent witnesses did not displace proof.

A conviction under the Customs Act was upheld in revision because the prosecution case was supported by reliable evidence of customs officers who witnessed the interception and seizure, and their testimony remained unshaken. The alleged involuntary confession did not undermine the conviction since it was not the sole basis for guilt. The absence of independent witnesses was treated as immaterial on the facts, given the early-hour interception and the cogency of the prosecution evidence. The revisional court's supervisory jurisdiction was confined to correcting patent illegality or miscarriage of justice, and no such error was shown in the concurrent findings below.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction under Section 135(1)(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 was liable to be set aside in revision on the grounds that the confession was involuntary, the complainant was not examined, and no independent witness supported the prosecution.

Analysis: The conviction was not founded solely on the alleged confession, but on the evidence of the customs officers who witnessed the interception and seizure and whose evidence remained unshaken. The absence of independent witnesses was not material in the circumstances because the occurrence took place in the early hours and the prosecution evidence was found cogent and reliable. The revisional court's power is supervisory and is not to be exercised as a second appeal; interference is warranted only where there is patent illegality or miscarriage of justice. The concurrent findings of the courts below were supported by the evidence and no such error was shown. The objection based on involuntary confession did not displace the remaining evidence supporting guilt.

Conclusion: The conviction was upheld and no interference in revision was warranted.

Ratio Decidendi: In revision, concurrent findings of guilt based on reliable prosecution evidence will not be disturbed unless there is a manifest error or miscarriage of justice, and a conviction need not fail merely because an alleged confession is excluded if the remaining evidence is sufficient.

---