Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + SC Customs - 1976 (3) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1976 (3) TMI 53 - SC - CustomsWhether Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 is ultra vires the provisions of Clause (3) of Article 20 of the Constitution? Whether this statement was hit by Section 24 of the Evidence Act? Held that:- The Customs authorities called the appellant and his companion to the Customs House, took them into custody, and after due compliance with the requirements of law, the Inspector of Customs questioned the appellant and recorded his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act. Under the circumstances it was manifest that at the time when the Customs Officer recorded the statement of the appellant, the latter was not formally "accused of any offence". The High Court was therefore right in holding that the statement recorded by the Inspector of Customs was not hit by Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The mere fact that the Inspector of Customs had, before recording the statement, warned the deponent of the possibility of his prosecution for perjury in case he did not make the statement truthfully, cannot be construed as a threat held out by the officer which could have reasonably caused the person making the statement to suppose that he would by making that statement, gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him for smuggling. No hesitation in holding that the statement Ex. 1, was not barred under Section 24, Evidence Act. The statement Ex. P-1 was clearly admissible under Section 21, Evidence Act as an admission of incriminating facts. The circumstances of the arrest of the appellant while escaping from the truck, the seizure of the truck and the goods, the contraband nature of the goods, the fact that at the time of the seizure the goods were in the charge of the appellant, the fact that no duty on these goods had been paid, the seizure of ₹ 2,000/- as cash from the appellant etc. were proved by evidence aliunde rendered by P.Ws. 1 and 2. To some extent, the hostile witness, P.W. 5, also, supported the prosecution. The circumstances established unmistakably and irresistibly pointed to the conclusion that the appellant was knowingly concerned in a fraudulent attempt at evasion, if not, fraudulent evasion, of duty chargeable on those contraband goods. Appeal dismissed.
|