https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398444 In a Customs Act prosecution, the HC declined to quash proceedings under Section 482 CrPC because statements recorded under Section 108 were treated as inculpatory admissions, not statements excluded by Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act merely because they were later retracted. The Court held that customs officers are not police officers, so the evidentiary position is different from a police investigation. It further held that the value of co-accused statements and other collected material is a matter for trial, and the quashing court should not prematurely discard them. Interference at the threshold was therefore refused. en-us Mon, 14 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Feb 2021 17:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398444 In a Customs Act prosecution, the HC declined to quash proceedings under Section 482 CrPC because statements recorded under Section 108 were treated as inculpatory admissions, not statements excluded by Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act merely because they were later retracted. The Court held that customs officers are not police officers, so the evidentiary position is different from a police investigation. It further held that the value of co-accused statements and other collected material is a matter for trial, and the quashing court should not prematurely discard them. Interference at the threshold was therefore refused. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 14 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398444