https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169473 Customs officers acting under the Sea Customs Act were treated as valid customs , not police officers for section 25 of the Evidence Act; the section 171A explanation was not a threat, inducement or promise under section 24, and Article 20(3) was not attracted absent a formal accusation at the time of statement. Accomplice testimony, read with co-accused confessions and surrounding circumstances, was held sufficient corroboration to connect the appellants with the conspiracy and smuggling operations, so the convictions were upheld. The Court found the role of accused No. 8 comparatively minor and reduced his sentence to rigorous imprisonment for one year. en-us Tue, 22 Dec 1964 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Apr 2015 16:33:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169473 Customs officers acting under the Sea Customs Act were treated as valid customs , not police officers for section 25 of the Evidence Act; the section 171A explanation was not a threat, inducement or promise under section 24, and Article 20(3) was not attracted absent a formal accusation at the time of statement. Accomplice testimony, read with co-accused confessions and surrounding circumstances, was held sufficient corroboration to connect the appellants with the conspiracy and smuggling operations, so the convictions were upheld. The Court found the role of accused No. 8 comparatively minor and reduced his sentence to rigorous imprisonment for one year. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 22 Dec 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169473