TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (10) TMI 94
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short 'the Act') and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment further. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is that 207 silver ingots weighing approximately 30 kgs. valued at Rs. 4,22,48,225/- were clandestinely brought into Goa in an Arab Dhow and the same were to be transported in the trawler Gramdev Navdurga (for short 'the trawler'). When the said trawler was intercepted at Aguada Light House by the Officers of the Customs Department on 4th of October, 1988 the appellant was found to be present on the trawler. The investigation revealed that the trawler was stationed on the port for being used to carry and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nbsp; The Customs Authorities while recording the statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, had not followed the safeguards provided under Section 164 Criminal Procedure Code; 2. The applicants in Criminal Revision Application Nos. 4, 5 and 6/2000 had been detained by the Customs Authorities from 4th October, 1988 to 7th October, 1988, which amounts to arrest of the said applicants and the statements of these applicants were recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act during this period of detention after giving threats and exercising duress. In this connection it is pointed out that the medical papers of the applicants show that they were assaulted and, as such, the statements of these applicants recorded under S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssure of coercion and threat and physical assault on the appellant. The High Court also rejected the third point that the prosecution has failed to establish any connection between the Dhow and the trawler on which the appellant and others were present. 8. The learned Counsel for the appellant reiterated the contentions raised before the High Court that the safeguards prescribed under Section 164 Criminal Procedure Code for recording the confessional statement of an accused have not been followed by the Customs Officer. 9. Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 reads as follows : "108 Power to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents. - (1) Any gazetted officer of custom shall have power to summon any person whose attendance h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and statements can be exercised only by a Judicial Magistrate. Even a police officer on whom power of a Magistrate has been conferred is forbidden from recording a confession. Sub-sections (2) and (4) deal with procedure which such Magistrate has to follow while recording inculpatory statements made by persons. Referring to Section 108 of the Customs Act, this Court observed : "Section 108 of the Customs Act does not contemplate any magisterial intervention. The power under the said section is intended to be exercised by a gazetted officer of the Customs Department. Sub-section (3) enjoins on the person summoned by the officer to state the truth upon any subject respecting which he is examined. He is not excused from speaking the truth on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceedings." 11. In the judgment this Court quoted with approval the following observations made by Hidayatullah, J (as he then was) in Haroon Haji Abdulla v. State of Maharashtra, 1968 (2) SCR 641 : "......These statements are not confessions recorded by a Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but are statements made in answer to a notice under Section 171-A of the Sea Customs Act. As they are not made subject to the safeguards under which concessions are recorded by Magistrates they must be specially scrutinised to finding out if they were made under threat or promise from someone in authority. If after such scrutiny they are considered to be voluntary, they may be received against the maker and in the same way as....