Forgot password
New User/ Regiser
⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1997 (2) TMI 97 - SC - Customs
Whether the confessional statement of the appellant given to the Customs officers under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 though retracted at a later stage, is admissible in evidence and could form basis for conviction?
Whether retracted confessional statement requires corroboration on material particulars from independent evidence?
Held that:- On scanning the evidence and going through the reasoning of the learned Single Judge we find that the learned Judge was right in accepting the confessional statement of the appellant, Ex. P-4 to be a voluntary one and that it could form the basis for conviction. The Magistrate had dwelt upon the controversy, no doubt on appreciation of the evidence but not in proper or right perspective. Therefore, it is not necessary for the learned Judge of the High Court to wade through every reasoning and give his reasons for his disagreement with the conclusion reached by the Magistrate. On relevant aspects, the learned Judge has dwelt upon in detail and recorded the disagreement with the Magistrate and reached his conclusions. Therefore, there is no illegality in the approach adopted by the learned Judge. We hold that the learned Judge was right in his findings that the prosecution has proved the case based upon the confession of the appellant given in Ex. P-4 under Section 108 of the Evidence Act and the evidence of PWs 2, 3 and 5. The prosecution proved the case beyond doubt and the High Court has committed no error of law.
.Having reached the finding that the appellant has committed the offences under Section 135 (1)(i) of the Act and Sections 85(1)(a) and 86 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 we think that instead of being committed to jail, the appellant should be sentenced to pay fine of ₹ 10,000/- and ₹ 5,000/- respectively for the two aforementioned offences, within 4 months from today. In default, he shall undergo imprisonment for a period of 2 months and 1 month respectively which are directed to run consecutively. Appeal is accordingly allowed to the above extent of modification.
