Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Admissibility of confessions under Section 108 of the Customs Act and the evidentiary value of prior testimony under Section 244(1) Cr.P.C. were central. The court applied the principle that a co-accused's confession is only corroborative and cannot be treated as substantive proof, and therefore set that aside to examine other evidence. Prior testimony was inadmissible under the Evidence Act because the complainant failed to establish the witness's unavailability or incapacity, and the complainant did not invoke the alternative business-records route. On that basis, the trial court's rejection of the testimony and acquittal of the remaining accused was upheld.
Admissibility of confessions under Section 108 of the Customs Act and the evidentiary value of prior testimony under Section 244(1) Cr.P.C. were central. The court applied the principle that a co-accused's confession is only corroborative and cannot be treated as substantive proof, and therefore set that aside to examine other evidence. Prior testimony was inadmissible under the Evidence Act because the complainant failed to establish the witness's unavailability or incapacity, and the complainant did not invoke the alternative business-records route. On that basis, the trial court's rejection of the testimony and acquittal of the remaining accused was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
