<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1987 (9) TMI 56 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY (PANAJI BENCH)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42196</link>
    <description>A statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act is not treated as an accused&#039;s statement when first recorded, but once the complainant arraigns the maker as an accused, it functions as an inculpatory statement against co-accused. Such a statement cannot by itself found prosecution, because Section 30 of the Evidence Act permits only limited corroborative consideration of a confession affecting others. Where the remaining documents are merely corroborative and do not independently connect the accused with the offence, process cannot validly issue on that basis and the order issuing process is liable to be quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Sep 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Jun 2010 17:13:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80725" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (9) TMI 56 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY (PANAJI BENCH)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42196</link>
      <description>A statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act is not treated as an accused&#039;s statement when first recorded, but once the complainant arraigns the maker as an accused, it functions as an inculpatory statement against co-accused. Such a statement cannot by itself found prosecution, because Section 30 of the Evidence Act permits only limited corroborative consideration of a confession affecting others. Where the remaining documents are merely corroborative and do not independently connect the accused with the offence, process cannot validly issue on that basis and the order issuing process is liable to be quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Sep 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42196</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>