TMI Blog2001 (12) TMI 106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d as under :- On 9-8-98, one truck bearing registration No. PB-11K-7375, parked on the road side near Rambagh, Agra, U.P., was seized by the Officers of the D.R.I., Nepal Division at about 6.00 P.M. On conducting search, the truck was found to contain 313 packages including 31 packages of oil cake, 54 packages of animal feed and 228 packages of goods, such as rechargeable light with radio and cassette player etc. of foreign origin collectively valued at Rs. 90,49,550/-. The goods were taken into possession through panchnama, dated 11-8-98 and the truck was seized. Some incriminating documents including registration number plate, registration book, sale vouchers etc. were also recovered. During investigation, the names of the present appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al of the impugned order shows that all the appellants were interrogated and during the course of recording of their statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, admitted of having indulged in the smuggling of the impugned goods. Their own confessional statements, in our view, were sufficient under the law to charge them under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. No more corroborative evidence was required in the adjudication proceedings being not totally judicial but only quasi judicial nature. It is also evident from the record that these appellants had been booked in the criminal cases also and even were detained under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA on account of their Anti-national and smuggling activities. The retraction of the confess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rse inference can be drawn and the evidence of one accomplice cannot be used to corroborate the evidence of the other accomplice, is not attracted to the facts of the present case, in the light of the discussions made above. Similarly, ratio of law laid down in Gian Chand Others v. State of Punjab - [1983 (13) E.L.T. 1365 (S.C.) = AIR 1962 SC 496] referred by the Counsel is not attracted to the facts of the present case. In that case, the Apex Court had only ruled that two distinct matters have to be established before a person can be held guilty of the offence set out in Section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act; (i) that the goods were smuggled, i.e. imported into the country either without payment of duty or in contravention of any restri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fessional statements subsequently when criminal proceedings were initiated against them. The retraction had been rightly held to be an after thought made just with a view to wrigle out of criminal proceedings. The learned Counsel has no doubt produced a copy of the bail order passed by S.D.J.M., Siliguri in a criminal case on 15-9-98, but the same is not at all relevant in the present appeals. The learned S.D.J.M. had allowed bail to Kamal Hazra, appellant, as perusal of the order shows, in routine, by keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. He has nowhere observed that the confession was obtained from Kamal Hazra, appellant under any duress and coercion by the Customs authorities. 10. The learned Commissioner of Customs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
