TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 433
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., who were waiting at departure gate number at 10.45 P.M. whereafter a personal search was done and the applicant-accused was informed to have violated the provisions of section 77 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1962'). On 07-08-2024, another search and seizure was also done at arrival lobby of the airport, at the time when the Air Asia Flight FD 146, landed at 10.20 P.M. and three co-accused namely Tanveer Mustafa, Damien During and applicant were detained and from personal search of Tanveer Mustafa, 3 gold bullions wrapped in a black coloured tissue paper, was recovered and nothing was recovered from the other two co-accused persons. The third search and seizure was also done at 10.30 P.M. at Crystal Apartment, wherein Ratnesh Pandey and Deepu Chaudhary were detained and some articles were recovered and thus, on 09-08-2024, the applicant and the other co-accused persons were arrested. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He argued that after the arrest of the applicant and other co-accused persons on 09-08- 2024, the invest....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plication and he is languishing in jail since last five months. He added that the offence is punishable upto 7 years and there is no flight risk or tampering of the evidences by the applicant. Further submission is that the applicant is a law abiding citizen and he is languishing in jail since 09-08-2024 and he undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Therefore, submission is that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the D.R.I. has vehemently opposed the contentions abovesaid and argued that the applicant was detained and arrested while the D.R.I. officials intercepted the CCS Airport, Lucknow and the Panchnama/recovery proceedings were duly completed. He submits that as per the call details record, the present applicant-accused had 8 and 3 times conversations with co-accused persons namely, Avinash Singh and Ratnesh Pandey respectively in between 20.3.2024 to 05-05-2024 and telephonic communications/conversations on the day of incident, which indicates that there was a close coordination and active involvement of the applicant in smuggling of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the present applicant, but, the fact remains that there is no strong evidence that in consonance with the conversations, any transaction has ever been done or the D.R.I. has failed to place any evidence that those conversations were specifically with respect to the offence, which is said to be committed. Further much emphasis is drawn on the statement of the present applicant-accused recorded under section 108 of the Act,1962 and the argument is placed on behest of the D.R.I. officials that the confessional statement itself is enough to convict the applicant. Though, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Romesh Chandra Mehta Vs State of West Bengal, reported in (1969) 2 SCR 461, that the custom officers are not the police officers and the statement recorded under section 108 of the Act,1962, is admissible in evidence, though there seems to be no quarrel regarding the same, whereas the further issue is that can the statement of an accused recorded under section 108 of the Act,1962, blindly be accepted without any corroboration of other evidences ? Infact, the admissibility of an evidence is one aspect of the matter and the conviction can lead only on the b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccused no.2 made before the Custom Officer on 24 th March 1996 under Section 108 of the Customs Act, the statement in isolation do not warrant conviction, particularly when it is retracted with a plea of coercion." This court is of the opinion that the confessional statement of an accused recorded under section 108 of the Act,1962, cannot blindly be accepted unless it is corroborated by any independent evidence/material as the same would not lead to conviction. The examination of confessional statement of the accused is essentially required so as to find out that the same is not taken under coercion or under extraneous influences. The trial court has also to be conscious enough while examining the correctness and voluntariness of the nature of the statement of the accused. I have also noticed the fact that no gold is recovered from the possession of the applicant and the D.R.I. officials have failed to strongly corroborate the story, though, the investigation is completed and the complaint has also been instituted, therefore, there seems no possibility that the applicant would tamper the evidences or would threaten the witnesses. Further the custodial interrogation also seems to ....