TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (9) TMI 882
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er disclosure of the identity by the Investigating Officer, they conducted the personal search of the accused in the presence of independent witnesses, namely; Kuldip Singh and Karaj Singh, leading to the recovery of 6 gold biscuits of foreign origin and Rs. 220/- in cash. Panchnama (Ex. PA) was prepared and signed by Mahipal Singh, Inspector Customs Preventive Amritsar, Hansa Singh OPD and two independent witnesses Kuldip Singh and Karaj Singh. Recovery memo (Ex. PB) was also prepared by Inspector Mahipal. The accused was brought to the Customs House, Amritsar. M/s. Jagan Nath Om Parkash Saraf tested the purity, weighment and gave valuation of the recovered biscuits vide his written certificate authenticating purity of the gold to the extent of 24 carat, weighing 699.840 gms valuing Rs. 3.28.925/-. The six gold biscuits were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 under the belief that the same were liable to be confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Act and having been imported/acquired/smuggled into India from foreign territory in violation of provisions of Import (Control) Order No. 17/55, dated 7-12-1955 read with Section 4 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regula....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....submitted that the Custom Officers, being Police Officers, the confessional statements, allegedly made before them by the accused, were hit by the provisions of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and, thus, were not legally admissible. He has further submitted that no other evidence was produced by the complainant, to prove that the accused was found in possession of the gold biscuits. It was also submitted that though the alleged recovery was effected on 22-3-1995 from the accused, whereas, his alleged confessional statements were recorded on 23-3-1995 and 25-3-1995 under Section 108 of the Act. It is also submitted that the mere fact that such statements were recorded by the Customs Authorities, after the lapse of sufficient time of the alleged recovery, in itself is sufficient to show that no such statements, much less voluntary, were made by the accused. 10. The first question, that arises for consideration, is, as to whether, the voluntary confessional statements 23-3-1995 and 25-3-1995 made by the accused (revision-petitioner) under Section 108 of the Act before the Custom Officers, are admissible into evidence or not. In State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram, AIR 19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....L.T. 1427 (S.C.), the same very Bench was required to consider, if the Custom Officers under the Customs Act, 1962, were Police Officers, within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. The Apex Court, referred to all the cases earlier decided and came to the conclusion, that they were not Police Officers within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, as they could not present report, under Section 173 Cr.P.C. 13. In K.I. Pavunny v. Assistant Collector, 1997 (3) RCR 71 (S.C.) = 1997 (90) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.), the Apex Court reiterated the earlier view and observed that the confessional statement, made before a Custom Officer, was admissible, as he is not a Police Officer within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, though he is entrusted with many of the powers, which an officer-incharge of the Police Station exercises while investigating an offence. It was further held that though a Custom Officer is, a person in authority, within the meaning of Section 24 of the Evidence Act, by reason of statutory compulsion of recording the statement of the accused, pursuant to his appearance, either after issuance of the summons or after his surrender, such statemen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de by a person, before them, under Section 108 of the Act, are hit by the provisions of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In view of the principle of law, laid down, in Romesh Chandra Mehta's, Illias's, State of Punjab's and Pavunny's cases (supra) decided by larger Benches of the Apex Court, no help could be drawn, from the principle of law, laid down, to the contrary, on the same point, in Noor Aga's case (supra) decided by a two Judge Bench of the Apex Court. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the petitioner, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 16. The mere fact that the confessional statements of the accused were recorded on 23-3-1995 and 25-3-1995 did not mean that the same were not voluntary. No evidence, whatsoever, was produced, on the record, that the accused was subjected to torture, coercion or duress, resulting into the making of confessional statements by him. The solitary circumstance that the confessional statements (Ex. PC and Ex. PH) were recorded by the Customs Authorities under Section 108 of the Act, after some delay, could not be said to be sufficient to discard their reliability. It was pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....only stated that the accused had been residing at Malout for the last about 10/12 years and about 4 years back, and the accused along with his brother was taken away from his house and involved in the false case. Prem Kumar Bansal (DW3) Inspector Food and Supply Department. Malout proved copy of ration card, while Parshotam Lal (DW4) is Senior Clerk in the office of Municipal Council, Malout who proved the enlistment of the accused as voter in M.C. Malout. Such evidence led by the accused is hardly sufficient to shake the findings of his guilt. 19. The concurrent findings, recorded by the Courts below based on the correct appreciation of the cogent, convincing, reliable and trustworthy evidence of Mahipal Singh Inspector Customs (PW1), Anup Kumar Superintendent Customs (PW2), Inspector Customs Jagjit Singh (PW3) and Vijay Kumar (PW4), who deposed with regard to the recovery of gold biscuits, aforesaid, from Sardara Singh, coupled with the voluntary confessional statements made by the accused, under Section 108 of the Act, that the accused was guilty of the offence, punishable under Section 135 of the Act, do not suffer from any illegality or perversity. It is settled princi....