Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2014 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (7) TMI 778 - HC - CustomsRetracted statements - Acquittal from offences punishable under section 135 (1)(a)(i) and 135 (1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 - carrying contraband gold in the vessel - said gold was smuggled into India from Sharjah - evidence of two witnesses i.e., the customs officer - Held that:- the statement under section 108 is admissible and it can be relied also. However, if at all it is retracted, then, weightage can be given to it only if there is corroboration on other material particulars, In the present case, as the panchas did not corroborate and the prosecution did not examine the other panch, that material evidence collapsed. The learned trial Judge has rightly observed that in the absence of the statements of these crew members, when the same were relevant u/w 108(b) of the Customs Act, it was the duty of the Prosecution to examine either the interpreter or the scribe and record their statements in order to confirm the veracity of the contents of the statements. The defence was successful in creating doubt in the mind that the vessel Rajendra Jyoti was not the only vessel berthed at the Hay Bunder during that period but nearly 25 vessels had arrived and, therefore, the possibility that any other person might have thrown the tin filled with gold bars in the sea could not have been overruled. - the trial Court has taken an evenly balanced view while assessing the evidence and, therefore, there is no need to disturb the finding of the trial Court. - Decided against the revenue.
|