TMI Blog2001 (1) TMI 123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e truck was driven by Sh. Jagdish Raj and one Shri Kuk Singh was the cleaner of the truck. On search of the truck, 274 gold biscuits were of foreign marking recovered. On the next day i.e. 18-7-1988, another truck bearing number DIL 3523 was intercepted by the Customs authorities near Ambala which was driven by Sh. Surjit Singh, the driver and one Jeet Singh was also found sitting in the truck. On search of the truck, 300 gold biscuits of foreign marking were recovered. On 19-7-1988, another truck bearing number DIL 2779, driven by Sh. Baldev Singh, was intercepted by the Customs authorities and 198 foreign marked gold biscuits were recovered from the truck. The total number of 772 gold biscuits valued at Rs. 2.78 crores were taken into pos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me of one Sh. Taranveer Singh alias Tari. No witnessee at the time of recovery of gold, named the present appellant i.e. Tarbalbir Singh. He, further, submits that the Customs authorities recorded the statement of the appellant under coersion and the appellant complained to the Magistrate that he was beaten by the officer of Custom and medical examination report confirms the injuries. Ld. Counsel also submits that the Customs authorities are relying upon the statement of one Sheetal Singh, who in his statement after seeing the photograph of the appellant, submitted that cavities in the trucks were made on the asking of the appellant and Sheetal Singh was not produced for cross-examination nor the photograph, which was shown to him, was give ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dmissible evidence, as the statement recorded by the Customs authorities under Section 108 of the Customs Act is not a confession recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure and they are not made subject to the safeguards under which confession was recorded by the Magistrate. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also held that the Court has to test whether the inculpating portions were made voluntarily or whether it is vitiated on account of any of the premises envisaged in Section 24 of the Evidence Act. In view of this decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we find no force in the arguments of the appellant that the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act is not admissible in evidence for imposing penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stan and US Dollars 1,25,000 were to be sent to Namberdar of Pakistan. The details given in the statement in respect of smuggled gold and their sale proceeds by the appellant are only exclusively and especially within his knowledge. Therefore, the contention of the appellant is that the statement was recorded under coersion has no force. The retraction of statement of the witnesses in the cross-examination will not help the appellant as the persons, who retracted the statements, were his employees and were working under him. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Collector v. Duncan Agro Industries Ltd. Ors. (supra) held that the statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act is admissible evidence and the Court has to test wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
