TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (7) TMI 202
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll as the confiscation of the VCR and the ball-point pens and perfume. The facts of the case are that on reliable information the Customs Officers of Diamond Harbour Preventive Unit on 15-5-1986 at about 03.00 hrs. saw a lorry at Kulpi Crossing going towards Lakshmikantapur. The lorry was stopped by them and they found three persons in the lorry. They were S/Shri Prafulla Debnath; Shambhu Das and Haradhan Das. There were 57 gunny bags containing medicinal powder valuing Rs. 37,78,500.00 along with five documents and also six keys having no commercial value and these were seized from that lorry. The medicinal powder was seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 on reasonable belief that the same was illegally imported into the country. 3. The above-said three persons were interrogated on the same day. They disclosed that the above medicinal powder was imported from Bangladesh and they picked up the same at Harwood point at about 01.00 hr. and the crew of the boat loaded them into the lorry. All these three persons stated that the above-captioned appellants directed them to pick up the medicinal powder from the above-said place and under their direction they went there. Shri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... statement was further corroborated by the statements of P. Debnath, S. Das and H. Das. It was also contended that these three persons had stated that on the instructions of the appellants they had engaged the lorry and went to the coastal place and picked up the medicinal powder from a boat coming from Bangladesh at Kakdwip-ghat. They also contended that P. Debnath stated that he was a Bangladeshi National and he was introduced to the appellants and he was given Rs. 2,000.00 for his services. They also contended that Sambhunath Das admitted that he was offered Rs. 5,000.00 as hire charge for the vehicle for transporting the medicinal powder. They also contended that H. Das in his statement had clearly stated that he was professional driver and he was driving this truck which was carrying the medicinal powder. It was also contended that he disclosed that Dilip Dey was the owner of the truck and Gour Saha had paid some money to Dilip Dey in connection with this truck. He also admitted that hp was paid Rs. 2,000.00 per trip as hire charge and he was paid Rs. 500.00 by the employer. They also contended that in this statement he had clearly stated that previously also he had carried su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his person when he was remanded to jail custody. Therefore, the contention of Shri Saha that he was assaulted by the officers on 15th and 16th of May, 1986 is corroborated by the Medical Certificate issued by the respective Medical Officer of the Presidency Jail to the Magistrate. This was submitted by him to the Magistrate as called for. In this connection, the learned Barrister relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1979 SC 705. In that case also their Lordships held that in order to rely on the confessional statement the same should be voluntary and true. But if the confession appears to be either untrue or having been caused by inducement or threat or promise as described in Section 24 of the Evidence Act, no reliance can be placed on the same. In that case also the Jail Doctor examined the maker of the statement and found certain injuries on his person. In such circumstances, their Lordships took note of the injuries and held that it is reasonable to presume that the stand taken by the appellant, Shri G.H. Saha that he was assaulted by the officers and got the injuries appears to be correct. Their Lordships, therefore, held that the appellant, Shri G.H. Sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rroboration is in material particulars. The corroboration must be from an independent source. One accomplice cannot corroborate another. See Bhiva Doulu Patil v. State of Maharashtra,.1963 3 SCR 830 = (AIR 1963 SC 599), . R.V. Baskerville, 1916-2 KB 658. In this light we shall examine the case of each appellant separately. Case of Accused No. 8 Mohamed Hussain Umar Kochra (Cr. A. No. 139 of 1966)" This decision clearly goes to show that the corroboration of the accomplice must be from independent source and one accomplice cannot corroborate another. 8. He also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1964 Supreme Court 1184 in the case of Haricharan Kurmi and Jogia Hajam v. State of Bihar wherein at page-1190 their Lordships held as follows: ...... "As we have already indicated, it has been a recognised principle of the administration of criminal law in this country for over half a century that the confession of a co-accused person cannot be treated as substantive evidence and can be pressed into service only when the court is inclined to , accept other evidence and feels the necessity of seeking for an assurance in support of its conclusion deducible from ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch list that the VCR is described as 'National Video Cassette Recorder NV-300 VHS -Model No. K-2 JC 04319 made in Japan'. The appellants had produced certificate from the Superintendent of Customs, Calcutta Airport before the Adjudicating Authority to show that the same was legally imported. This certificate shows that one Mr. Ram Shankar of Shoi Azamgar (H.P.) having Indian Passport No. 297855 came by AI-307 Flight on 24-1-1985 and had paid the duty towards the VCR Model No. NV-300EN bearing Sl. No. K2KC04319. Therefore, the VCR in question deals with the description given by the Superintendent of Customs and this goes to show that duty of Rs. 5800.00 was paid on the VCR. Therefore, its confiscation under Sections 111(b), (d) & (p) of the Customs Act, 1962 as proposed in the show cause notice is not in accordance with law. 12. In the show cause notice Section 111(o) was not invoked. But the learned S.D.R. contended that this baggage receipt was not available when the show cause notice was issued and it was produced by the appellants at a later stage. He, therefore, contended that the order of the learned Collector has clearly stated that Section 111(o) is attracted in this case e....