https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42921 Non-examination or incomplete proof of panch witnesses under Section 102(4) of the Customs Act did not, by itself, invalidate the search where Customs officers gave consistent evidence of recovery and the seizure was otherwise proved. A statement recorded under Section 108 was treated as voluntary despite later retraction because it was contemporaneous, endorsed as correctly recorded, and corroborated by official testimony and surrounding circumstances. The conviction under Section 136(1) could not stand once the alleged concert with the co-accused was not established after the co-accused's acquittal. The acquittal was therefore reversed for the offences linked to the proved recovery and confession, but maintained for Section 136(1). en-us Fri, 10 Aug 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Jun 2010 10:40:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42921 Non-examination or incomplete proof of panch witnesses under Section 102(4) of the Customs Act did not, by itself, invalidate the search where Customs officers gave consistent evidence of recovery and the seizure was otherwise proved. A statement recorded under Section 108 was treated as voluntary despite later retraction because it was contemporaneous, endorsed as correctly recorded, and corroborated by official testimony and surrounding circumstances. The conviction under Section 136(1) could not stand once the alleged concert with the co-accused was not established after the co-accused's acquittal. The acquittal was therefore reversed for the offences linked to the proved recovery and confession, but maintained for Section 136(1). Case-Laws Customs Fri, 10 Aug 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42921