2026 (3) TMI 216 - HC - Customs

Prima Facie Test upheld: approver and voluntary statements can supply sufficient material to refuse discharge and proceed to trial.

Prima facie assessment applied to determine whether accused should be discharged: the court treated voluntary statements and approver admissions as ... Scope of discharge jurisdiction - prima facie satisfaction to proceed to trial - admissibility and probative value of statements u/s 108 of the Customs Act - extra-judicial confession - criminal breach of trust - illegal gratification - approver's evidence and its probative value - CCTV evidence as corroborative material - public servants - Commission of offences punishable under Sections 120B r/w 409 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC’) as well as under Sections 8 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, as amended 2018 (`PC Act, 2018’). Scope of discharge jurisdiction - prima facie satisfaction to proceed to trial - Whether the learned Special Judge erred in refusing to discharge the revision petitioner/accused No. 3 and whether prima facie materials justified proceeding to trial. - HELD THAT: - The Court applied the settled test for considering a discharge plea and held that the jurisdiction at the discharge stage is limited and does not permit a roving, mini-trial or meticulous reappraisal of prosecution evidence. The court must be satisfied only whether, prima facie, the offences are made out or a strong suspicion exists to warrant trial. On the record before it, including the statements recorded and the particulars in the final report, the Special Court had sufficient material to reach a prima facie satisfaction that trial should proceed against accused No. 3. The High Court found no error in the Special Court's approach or conclusion and declined to substitute its own evaluation of evidence which is properly to be tested in trial. [Paras 9, 10, 11] Discharge plea rejected; sufficient prima facie material exists to proceed to trial against the petitioner. Admissibility and probative value of statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act - approver's evidence and its probative value - HELD THAT: - The Court recognised that voluntary statements under Section 108 are admissible and constitute substantive evidence, but their evidentiary weight and need for corroboration are matters for trial. The Special Court correctly declined to rule on voluntariness or fully test credibility at the discharge stage. Further, certain declarants were made approvers during investigation, and approver evidence carries probative value which must be assessed in trial; the High Court held that how much weight to attach to approver statements and co-accused confessions is a trial question and not a basis for discharge on the present record. [Paras 9] Section 108 statements and approver/confession evidence are admissible but their probative value and requirement of corroboration are to be examined at trial; they do not mandate discharge at this stage. CCTV evidence as corroborative material - HELD THAT: - The Court noted the prosecution's position that the customs room may not have been covered by CCTV and that footage, where available, may only establish presence. The learned Special Judge correctly treated CCTV material as corroborative evidence whose relevance and weight must be determined during trial. Prior orders quashing proceedings against certain travellers because only presence on CCTV was shown do not automatically entitle the petitioner to discharge where other materials (including approver statements) exist. Evaluation of CCTV evidence is therefore a matter for trial. [Paras 9, 10] CCTV visuals are corroborative and their evidentiary value must be assessed at trial; absence of incriminating footage does not, on the present record, require discharge. Prima facie satisfaction to proceed to trial - HELD THAT: - The Court examined Annexure II where proceedings against certain travellers were quashed for lack of prima facie material, while similar pleas were rejected for others where recoveries existed. The High Court held that the different outcomes in Annexure II turn on the distinct materials available against each accused and do not automatically confer benefit to accused No. 3. The Special Court's common order taking cognisance of the materials against accused Nos. 1-13 and others was not vitiated merely because some other accused had succeeded on separate facts. [Paras 10] Annexure II quashment of other accused does not entitle the petitioner to discharge; differing factual materials justify separate outcomes. Final Conclusion: The High Court found no error in the Special Court's refusal to discharge accused No. 3: there are prima facie materials, including admissible statements and approver evidence, which justify trial; questions of voluntariness, corroboration, weight of confessions, approver testimony and CCTV evidence are factual matters for trial. The revision petition is dismissed. Issues: Whether the revision petitioner/accused No.3 should be discharged or whether there are prima facie materials to proceed to trial against him.Analysis: The Court examined the prosecution materials relied upon by the Special Court, including voluntary statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, approver statements (pardoned persons) and the particulars in the final report specifying alleged payments to accused No.3. The Court noted settled law that statements under Section 108 are admissible but require corroboration for conviction and that approver evidence has probative value to be tested at trial. The Court observed that evaluating voluntariness or weight of such statements would require trial and that at the discharge stage the court must apply the prima facie test and avoid conducting a mini trial. Given that accused Nos. 22 and 25 (now approvers) and another person gave statements implicating accused No.3 regarding demand and receipt of gratification, and that the charge sheet contains specific charge numbers against him, the Court found sufficient material to raise a strong suspicion warranting trial.Conclusion: The discharge petition is dismissed; there are prima facie materials to proceed to trial against the revision petitioner/accused No.3.