Retracted co-accused statements need independent corroboration, and a charge order founded on factual error cannot be sustained.

A retracted statement of a co-accused recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act is relevant material but is not substantive evidence against another accused unless independently corroborated, especially where coercion is alleged and no recovery is made from the petitioner. A charge order based on the mistaken assumption that the petitioner's own Section 108 statement had been recorded cannot stand, and revisional affirmation of that error is vulnerable in inherent jurisdiction as an abuse of process. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration on the correct factual and evidentiary footing.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner could be proceeded against on the basis of the retracted statement of a co-accused recorded under the Customs Act. (ii) Whether the order framing charge could be sustained when the petitioner's own statement was not recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act and the lower courts proceeded on a mistaken assumption of fact.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner could be proceeded against on the basis of the retracted statement of a co-accused recorded under the Customs Act.

Analysis: A statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act may be relevant material, but a confession of a co-accused is not substantive evidence by itself against another accused. Where the maker retracts the statement at the earliest opportunity and the statement is alleged to have been obtained under duress, the Court must look for independent corroboration before permitting the prosecution to proceed on that basis alone. The material on record showed that no recovery was made from the petitioner and that the case against him rested essentially on the co-accused's statement, which had been retracted and was supported by medical material suggesting coercion.

Conclusion: The petitioner could not be proceeded against merely on the retracted statement of the co-accused without independent supporting evidence.

Issue (ii): Whether the order framing charge could be sustained when the petitioner's own statement was not recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act and the lower courts proceeded on a mistaken assumption of fact.

Analysis: The order framing charge proceeded on the assumption that the petitioner's statement under Section 108 had been recorded, although that was admittedly not so. The revisional court failed to correct this factual error and mechanically affirmed the charge order. In proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, continuation of a prosecution based on a material factual misconception and without proper consideration of the absence of direct material against the petitioner would amount to abuse of process. The proper course was to have the matter reconsidered by the trial court on the correct factual and legal footing.

Conclusion: The charge order and the revisional order could not be sustained and were liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings were remitted for fresh consideration by the trial court after correcting the factual premise and assessing the evidentiary value of the co-accused's retracted statement in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A co-accused's retracted statement cannot, without independent corroboration, form the sole basis for proceeding against another accused, and a charge order founded on a material factual error is vulnerable to correction in inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process.

---