Voluntariness of customs statement under Section 108 upheld; retractions and Section 164 objection did not defeat penalties.

A statement recorded by Customs officers under Section 108 of the Customs Act is not equated with a Magistrate's confession under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Its admissibility turns on whether the inculpatory parts were made voluntarily and are not affected by the vitiating factors in Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act. On the stated facts, the detailed statement, the explanation of coded documents recovered from the residence, and the surrounding circumstances supported voluntariness, while retractions by employee-witnesses did not undermine the material relied on. The statement was therefore treated as admissible, and the penalties were sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act was inadmissible for want of compliance with Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and whether the statement was shown to have been recorded under coercion so as to invalidate the penalties.

Analysis: A statement recorded by Customs officers under Section 108 of the Customs Act is not treated as a confession recorded by a Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Its admissibility depends on whether the inculpating portions were made voluntarily and are free from the vitiating circumstances contemplated by Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act. On the facts, the appellant's detailed statement, the explanation of coded documents recovered from his residence, and the surrounding circumstances were treated as showing voluntary disclosure rather than coercion. The retractions by witnesses who were employees of the appellant did not dislodge the evidentiary value of the material relied upon.

Conclusion: The statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act was held to be admissible and voluntary, and the challenge to the penalties failed.

---