https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46531 Statements recorded by Customs officers were held admissible against the maker because a Customs Officer is not treated as a police officer for the evidentiary bar under the Indian Evidence Act. On the facts, recovery of foreign-origin gold bars and the absence of any lawful explanation supported guilt of accused Nos. 1 and 2, so their conviction and sentence were restored. By contrast, the material against accused Nos. 3 to 7 was insufficient: the alleged recovery was doubtful, and co-accused statements without reliable independent corroboration could not sustain conviction. Their acquittal was therefore confirmed. en-us Mon, 01 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Jul 2010 13:10:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46531 Statements recorded by Customs officers were held admissible against the maker because a Customs Officer is not treated as a police officer for the evidentiary bar under the Indian Evidence Act. On the facts, recovery of foreign-origin gold bars and the absence of any lawful explanation supported guilt of accused Nos. 1 and 2, so their conviction and sentence were restored. By contrast, the material against accused Nos. 3 to 7 was insufficient: the alleged recovery was doubtful, and co-accused statements without reliable independent corroboration could not sustain conviction. Their acquittal was therefore confirmed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 01 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46531