9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (11) TMI 102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riod of six years and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for each of the offences under the Customs Act and rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence under the Gold Control Act. The sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. Along with the appellants some other accused were also convicted. There were appeals by the State Government as well as the Assistant Collector of Customs and an appeal by the appellant before the High Court of Gujarat. The High Court while confirming the conviction, partly allowed his appeal and reduced the sentence of imprisonment under Sections 135(1A) and 135(1B) of the Customs Act to five years rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Such signals were given by the said persons but the boat did not come to the coast. The officers saw red signals being flashed from the house of the appellant situated nearby and they went to that house. There were three persons who had flashed red signals. On the next day the officers went to the boat which was at the mid sea and made a search. Accused Nos. 1 to 7 were on that vessel. It was learnt from the three accused that 16 packets of gold were dumped in the sea at a short distance. They were taken out and it was found that they contained 32,000 tolas of gold. The officers recorded statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act. Ultimately a complaint was filed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Valsad on 29-3-1974 against 11 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant. We are unable to accept the arguments that the entire case rests on the sole uncorroborated testimony of PW 27 who was a co-accused. If it had been factually correct the contention would have been well founded. Our attention has been drawn to the judgment in Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar, AIR 1964 S.C. 1184 in which it is held that though the confession of a co-accused person cannot be treated as substantive evidence and can be pressed into service only when the Court is inclined to accept other evidence and feels the necessity for an assurance in support of its conclusion deducible from the said evidence. The Court observed that the stage to consider such confessional statements arriv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o gave the statements. The statements were found to be voluntary and not vitiated in any manner. Hence, all those statements are admissible in evidence and it is clear therefrom that the appellant was guilty of the offences for which he was prosecuted. 7.An attempt was made to contest the admissibility of the said statements in evidence. It is well settled that statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act are admissible in evidence vide Ramesh Chandra v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1970 S.C. 940 and K.I. Pavunny v. Assistant Collector (H.Q.), Central Excise Collectorate, Cochin, 1997 (90) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.) = (1997) 3 S.C.C. 721. 8.The Courts below were therefore justified in accepting the contents of those statements and conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
