TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (7) TMI 730
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rroborated by any substantial and independent evidence either generally or in material particulars? 3. Whether the Appellate Tribunal under the facts and circumstances of this case, is justified in giving a finding that the co- accused have retracted their statements only after two months in spite of the bail applications of the co-accused containing retractions and the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam directing the jail authorities to provide medical treatment to those co- accused? 4. Whether the Appellate Tribunal under the facts and circumstances of this case, is correct in holding that statements of the co-accused are voluntary and true of the prolonged illegal custody of the co-accused from 24.02.89 to 27-02-89 during which period statements obtained from the co-accused? 5. The Appellate Tribunal under the facts and circumstances of this case, is legally correct in relying on the Judgement of two judges bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Naresh J Sukhwani vs.Union of India, reported in 1996 (83) Excise Law Times 258 (SC) in preference to the judgment of the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme court reported in A.I.R.1964, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant was searched by the officers on 3.3.1989, no incriminating materials were recovered. Several other business premises were also searched and statements were recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. When statements were taken, 17 of them had spoken about the role of the appellant in smuggling contraband gold biscuits to India. All the persons were arrested under Section 104 of the Customs Act and remanded to judicial custody by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam. The persons, who had given statement under Section 108, had filed statements, retracting their statements as well. 3. The appellant appeared before the Assistant Collector of Customs, Calicut on 6.5.1989. He did not give any confessional statement admitting commission of offence under the Customs Act. Show cause notice dated 8.8.1989 was issued to the appellant and others on the allegation of smuggling 3300 gold biscuits into India. The appellant denied the allegations. The adjudicating authority, after considering the replies filed by the persons involved in the matter, held that the appellant is liable for imposition of penalty. Hence, penalty was imposed for an amount of Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ents are baseless. Even if an accused retracted from the earlier statement under Section 108, unless sufficient materials are available to take on record that such statements have been forcibly taken from the accused, it is not possible for the courts or quasi judicial authorities to ignore the statement given under Section 108. The retraction might be an after thought as well. 10. Apparently, in this case, retracted statements were filed after two months from the date on which the accused were apprehended. The learned senior counsel further made specific reference to the fact that all the accused were made to give such statements by force and by inflicting them with severe injuries and using third degree methods. This fact was mentioned by the accused, when he was produced before the Magistrate. The accused had stated that they were subjected to severe manhandling and the matter was recorded by the Magistrate. We therefore called for the entire files from the Additional CJM's Court (Economic Offence), Ernakulam and on a reference of the files, we do not find any such statement being made by the accused nor any record is available to indicate that the accused who had given suc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....egal implications evolved from the aforesaid factual situation, it is clear that confession statement of co-accused can be treated as evidence, provided sufficient materials are available to corroborate such evidence. As far as retraction statement is concerned, it is for the person who claims that retraction has been made genuinely to prove that the statements were obtained under force, duress, coercion etc. Otherwise, the materials indicate that statements were given voluntarily. When the statute permits such statements to be the basis of finding of guilt even as far as co-accused is concerned, there is no reason to depart from the said view. It is a question of appreciation of evidence. The original authority has considered the contentions of the petitioner in the following manner: "35. In this case all persons from whom statements were recorded had given a wealth of details as to how the entire smuggling operation was carried out resulting in the seizure of the gold and these details could have been only in the personal knowledge of the persons who made those statements. The intricate details of movements from one place to another, the type and number of vehicles used, the tim....