Customs charge stage permits reliance on admissible statements and grave suspicion to sustain a prima facie case.

Statements recorded by customs officers during investigation are admissible, and Article 20(3) protection does not apply at that stage. A co-accused's confession may also be relied on under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In the context of framing charge under the Customs Act, the court need not conduct a trial-level assessment of evidence; grave suspicion based on the material on record is sufficient. The discussion also notes that statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, along with surrounding facts such as recovery of contraband and absconding, can support a prima facie case at the charge stage.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order framing charge under the Customs Act was liable to be quashed for want of evidence and inadmissibility of statements recorded by customs ; and whether the material on record disclosed a prima facie case at the stage of charge.

Analysis: Statements recorded by customs officers during investigation are admissible in evidence. The protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India is not available at that stage. A confession of a co-accused is also admissible under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The petitioner was alleged to be the owner of the truck from which a large quantity of gold was recovered from a secret cavity, the drivers had named him in their statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the petitioner had absconded after the seizure. At the stage of framing of charge, the Court is not required to evaluate evidence as at trial, and grave suspicion is sufficient.

Conclusion: The challenge to the charge failed and the order framing charge was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of framing charge, if the material gives rise to grave suspicion and the statutory statements are admissible, the charge cannot be quashed on the ground that evidence has not yet been finally tested.

---