TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 216
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etitioner/ accused No. 3. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation. Perused the records. 3. Here the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 120B r/w 409 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short hereinafter) as well as under Sections 8 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, as amended 2018 (`PC Act, 2018' for short hereinafter). The revision petitioner herein is the 3rd accused in the above case. The prosecution case is that accused Nos. 1 to 3, 5 to 7 and 9 to 13, as public servants had received illegal gratification from the passengers for releasing their dutiable goods, without imposing customs duty and penalty as on 11/01/2021 and 12/01/2021. Accused No.4 alleged to have conspired with other customs officials in the array of accused to withhold contraband articles illegally, without confiscating or making entry of the same in the Books of Accounts and thereby they alleged to have committed the offence of criminal breach of trust punishable u/s. 409 of IPC. As far as the 8th accused is concerned, the allegation by the prosecu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the said accused persons had left the airport much before the commencement of the Joint Surprise check (JSC). The learned Court below failed to find that mere reliance on confession statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 would render the charge against the Revision Petitioner/Accused No. 3 groundless, thereby entitling him for an honourable discharge. E. The learned Court below grossly erred in finding in Paragraph 52 of the impugned order that the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 'prima-facie indicate the involvement of the public servants/accused in demand and acceptance of bribe, while they were in discharge of duty at the Calicut International Airport'. The said finding in unsustainable in law as it is settled position of law that confession statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be the sole basis for arriving at conviction of an accused. F. The confession statements relied on by the Respondent against the Petitioner/Accused No. 3 are the statements of co-accused i.e the statements of Accused Nos. 21, 22, 25 and 26. It is needless to state that confession of a co-accused is wea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....room, which according to the Respondent CBI is not covered by CCTV cameras. Moreover, the said finding of the learned Court below runs contrary to the finding of this Hon'ble Court in Annexure-II order that CCTV visuals merely establish the presence of the accused persons at the airport. The finding of this Hon'ble Court in Annexure-II order is as follows: "10..........Merely relying on the CCTV footage showing their presence at the airport and their presence before the customs officer by itself would not prima facie justify that they had paid illegal gratification unless the same is specifically recovered by the manner known to law." J. Digital evidence in the form of CCTV footages neither proves nor corroborates the guilt of the Revision Petitioner/Accused No. 3. At the outset, the CCTV visuals proposed to be adduced as evidence by the Respondent CBI do not contain any visual of the alleged acceptance of illegal gratification by the petitioner from the customs room. Moreover, the Respondent CBI has admitted in Annexure-I Final Report that there is no CCTV installed inside the customs room. Thus, the CCTV visuals do not even prima facie suggest that the R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the demand made by accused No.7 for releasing her gold ornaments without imposing penalty. Further he had received bribe amount of Rs. 15,000/- from accused No. 22 for releasing his passport and baggage containing dutiable goods without imposing penalty. Apart from that, accused No. 3 had received illegal gratification of Rs. 15,000/- from one Kattappani Abdul Rifay for releasing his passport and baggage containing dutiable goods without imposing penalty and thereby committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the above said items. Charge Nos.50, 51, 60, 61, 68 and 69 in the final report are against the petitioner/accused No. 3 in this regard. 9. The specific case of the revision petitioner is that since the statements recorded as that of the co-accused under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 are relied on by the prosecution to see prima facie the allegation against the 4th accused, the same alone is insufficient to proceed with trial after framing charge. In this connection, it is relevant to note that, as found by the Special Court, accused No. 25 stated the names of accused Nos. 2, 7, 10 and 11 also regarding payment of bribe of Rs. 30,000/- to accused No. 3. Simila....