1995 JTR(SC) 1101
1996 AIR(SC) 522 ; 1995 AIR(SCW) 4422 ; 1996 1 ALT(Cri)(SC) 240 ; 1995 CriLR 753 ; 1995 CriLR(Cal) 356 ; 1995 4 Crimes(SC) 340 ; 1996 83 ELT 258 ; 1995 8 JT 160 ; 1995 6 Scale 386 ; 1995 Supp4 SCC 663 ; 1996 SCC(Cri) 76 ; 1995 Supp4 SCR 778 ; 1995 KHC 722 ; 1995 2 KLT(Online) 1043
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy & B.N. Kirpal, JJ.
Naresh J. Sukhawani - Petitioner.
versus
Union of India - Respondent
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 23708 of 1995
Decided on 6-11-1995
IMPORTANT POINT
Statement made before Customs officials is not a statement recorded u/s 161 Cr. P.C. but is a material piece of evidence collected u/s 108 of the Customs Act.
Act
Referred
:CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.161
CUSTOMS ACT : S.108
EVIDENCE ACT : S.30
(A) The evidentiary framework under Section 30 of the Evidence Act, read with the investigatory powers under Section 108 of the Customs Act, permits the use of statements recorded from accused persons to establish contravention of customs regulations when such statements inculpate both the declarant and the petitioner. The procedural safeguards under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code do not apply to statements recorded by Customs officials in this context, allowing such material to function as substantive evidence supporting confiscation orders where independent corroboration is deemed unnecessary by the adjudicating authority.
(B) Statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act by Customs officials are admissible as substantive evidence to connect a petitioner with contravention of customs provisions. The principle of caution against self-incrimination does not override the statutory scheme that expressly authorizes such statements. The revisional authoritys finding that such evidence, reinforced by intrinsic material, establishes a contravention is not per se erroneous. A co-accuseds statement, though normally requiring corroboration under Section 30 of the Evidence Act, may form the basis for confiscation when evaluated as part of the overall material by the competent authority.
Facts of the case:
Currency exceeding Rs. 13 lakh was seized from the petitioner at an airport while attempting export. The seizure was based on statements from a co-accused and the petitioner recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. An initial confiscation order was set aside on appeal, but was restored by the Government and later affirmed by the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the Customs officials acted within their statutory powers. The statement of the co-accused, together with photographs and other intrinsic material, was sufficient for the revisional authority to conclude that both the co-accused and the petitioner were involved in exporting foreign currency. The Court found no illegality in using the statement as substantive evidence and deemed the penalty appropriate.
Issues:
Whether a statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act can be used as substantive evidence against the petitioner. Whether the revisional authority correctly evaluated such evidence in isolation without independent corroboration. Whether the High Courts order suffers from material illegality warranting interference.
Ratio Decidendi:
Under the Customs Act and relevant evidentiary provisions, statements recorded by Customs authorities from accused persons that directly inculpate the petitioner, when assessed with intrinsic material, provide a valid basis for confiscation. The revisional authoritys factual findings are binding where supported by the recorded evidence and intrinsic material, and there is no mandatory requirement for independent corroboration in this context.
Result:
The special leave petition is dismissed and the orders of confiscation and penalty are upheld.
(A) The evidentiary framework under Section 30 of the Evidence Act, read with the investigatory powers under Section 108 of the Customs Act, permits the use of statements recorded from accused persons to establish contravention of customs regulations when such statements inculpate both the declarant and the petitioner. The procedural safeguards under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code do not apply to statements recorded by Customs officials in this context, allowing such material to function as substantive evidence supporting confiscation orders where independent corroboration is deemed unnecessary by the adjudicating authority.
(B) Statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act by Customs officials are admissible as substantive evidence to connect a petitioner with contravention of customs provisions. The principle of caution against self-incrimination does not override the statutory scheme that expressly authorizes such statements. The revisional authoritys finding that such evidence, reinforced by intrinsic material, establishes a contravention is not per se erroneous. A co-accuseds statement, though normally requiring corroboration under Section 30 of the Evidence Act, may form the basis for confiscation when evaluated as part of the overall material by the competent authority.
Facts of the case:
Currency exceeding Rs. 13 lakh was seized from the petitioner at an airport while attempting export. The seizure was based on statements from a co-accused and the petitioner recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. An initial confiscation order was set aside on appeal, but was restored by the Government and later affirmed by the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the Customs officials acted within their statutory powers. The statement of the co-accused, together with photographs and other intrinsic material, was sufficient for the revisional authority to conclude that both the co-accused and the petitioner were involved in exporting foreign currency. The Court found no illegality in using the statement as substantive evidence and deemed the penalty appropriate.
Issues:
Whether a statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act can be used as substantive evidence against the petitioner. Whether the revisional authority correctly evaluated such evidence in isolation without independent corroboration. Whether the High Courts order suffers from material illegality warranting interference.
Ratio Decidendi:
Under the Customs Act and relevant evidentiary provisions, statements recorded by Customs authorities from accused persons that directly inculpate the petitioner, when assessed with intrinsic material, provide a valid basis for confiscation. The revisional authoritys factual findings are binding where supported by the recorded evidence and intrinsic material, and there is no mandatory requirement for independent corroboration in this context.
Result:
The special leave petition is dismissed and the orders of confiscation and penalty are upheld.
ORDER
B.N. Kirpal, J. - The special1eave petition arises from the order dated 7th August, 1995 passed by the Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 1334 of 1995. The Customs officials at Sahar International Airport, Bombay apprehended one Sukhawani Solanki when he was attempting to export foreign exchange out of India valuing Rs. 13,27,212/-. Mr. Solanki in his statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act by the Customs official, had stated that one Mr. Subhash Dudani had given him the currency to hand over to Mr. Kenny at Hongkong. The Customs officials apprehended Mr. Subhash Dudani who in his statement recorded under. Section 108 stated that foreign exchange given to Solanki was received from one Mr. Rajesh Sukhawani. Thereafter, the Customs officials traced the petitioner and had searched his premises on December 21, 1991, in his absence, but nothing incriminating was recovered.
2. The Customs officials initiated proceedings for confiscation of foreign exchange and used the statement of Mr. Dudani against the petitioner. After enquiry and giving an opportunity to the petitioner, the Additional Collector confiscated the foreign currency and imposed a penalty of Rs.1 lakh. When the petitioner challenged the confiscation in appeal, the Collector set aside the said order. On suo motu revision, the Government reversed the order of the Co1lector and restored the order of the Additional Collector which was affirmed by the High Court by the impugned order. Thus the special leave petition.
3. The Joint Secretary to the Government, the revisional authority, has held that the evidence and the statement given by Mr. Dudani incriminated the petitioner. This was established with reference to the photographs and other intrinsic material. On that basis, he concluded that Mr. Dudani incriminated himself and the appellant in passing off foreign currency out of India, i.e., to Hong Kong. It was accordingly held that the contravention was established. It is contended that the statement of co-accused could be used only to corroborate other evidence as one of the circumstances under Section 30 of the Evidence Act. But it cannot be used as substantive evidence without corroboration from other independent evidence. Except the statement of Dudani, there is no other independent evidence. Mr. Dudanis evidence cannot be pressed into service to arrive at the conclusion that the petitioner is involved in the passing off foreign currency out of India.
4. It must be remembered that the statement made before the Customs officials is not a statement recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Therefore, it is a material piece of evidence collected by Customs officials under Section 108 of the Customs Act. That material incriminates the petitioner inculpating him in the contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act. The material can certainly be used to connect the petitioner in the contravention inasmuch as Mr. Dudanis statement clearly inculpates not only himself but also the petitioner. It cap, therefore, be used as substantive evidence connecting the petitioner with the contravention by exporting foreign currency out of India. Therefore, we do not think that there is any illegality in the order of confiscation of foreign currency and imposition of penalty. There is no ground warranting reduction of fine.
The special leave petition is dismissed accordingly.
SLP dismissed.