Customs complaint evidence: Section 108 statements and corroborating material can support summoning and resist quashing.

Statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 are admissible in customs proceedings and may be relied on with other prima facie material to support summoning in a complaint case. The Court noted that the complaint was backed by the applicant's own statement, recovery-related material, the panchnama, the valuer's report, and surrounding circumstances indicating involvement in illegal trade of foreign gold. A co-accused's statement recorded in customs proceedings can also be used against another accused in such matters. On that basis, the summoning order and cognizance were treated as supported by prima facie evidence and not fit for quashing merely on a disputed assessment of reliability or sufficiency.

---

---

Issues: Whether the summoning order and cognizance taken in a customs complaint could be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction on the ground that the material was insufficient and that the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 were unreliable or inadmissible against the applicant.

Analysis: The record showed that the complaint was supported not only by the co-accused's statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 but also by the applicant's own statement, recovery-related materials, the panchnama, the valuer's report, and other circumstances indicating active involvement in illegal trade of foreign gold. Statements recorded under Section 108 are legally admissible and stand on a footing different from statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court further held that a co-accused's statement recorded in customs proceedings can be used against the other accused in a customs matter. In a complaint case, the Magistrate is required to apply judicial mind and record prima facie satisfaction, and the summoning order cannot be recalled by the Magistrate.

Conclusion: The summoning order was found to be legal and supported by prima facie material, and the application for quashing was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the summoning and cognizance orders failed, and the applicant was required to face trial on the customs complaint.

Ratio Decidendi: Statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 are admissible material in customs proceedings and may, with other prima facie evidence, justify summoning of an accused in a complaint case; such a summoning order is not liable to be quashed in inherent jurisdiction merely on a disputed assessment of evidence.

---