Recorded statements and seized documents need strict statutory proof before they can support a criminal conviction under excise law.

Section 9-D of the Central Excises and Salt Act permits a recorded statement to be used as substantive evidence only when the statutory conditions for non-examination of the maker are strictly proved, and a mere prosecutorial endorsement of unavailability is insufficient. Those safeguards mirror Section 33 of the Evidence Act and require foundational facts to be established in court. Section 36-A's document presumption applies only where the document is produced by, or seized from, the custody or control of the person against whom it is relied on; it could not be invoked here against the accused. As the co-accused's statement was exculpatory and the evidence did not satisfy criminal proof requirements, the conviction could not stand and acquittal followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution could rely on the recorded statement of a non-examined witness and on seized documents as substantive evidence under the special evidentiary provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, so as to sustain the conviction of the accused.

Analysis: The special rule embodied in Section 9-D of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 permits a statement recorded by a Gazetted Central Excise Officer to be treated as substantive evidence only when the statutory conditions are strictly proved, including the inability to examine the maker for the reasons specified in the provision. Those safeguards are in pari materia with Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the foundational facts for their invocation must be established by evidence in court. A mere endorsement by the prosecutor or investigating officer that the witness is unavailable is insufficient. The document-presumption under Section 36-A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 also applies only when the document is produced by, or seized from the custody or control of, the person against whom it is used in prosecution. Where the witness who produced the documents was not an accused, the statutory presumption could not be invoked against the accused. The statement attributed to the co-accused was exculpatory rather than confessional, and the materials relied upon by the prosecution did not satisfy the evidentiary requirements for a criminal conviction.

Conclusion: The conviction could not be sustained and the accused were entitled to acquittal.

---