LexBHANA KHALPA BHAI PATEL versus ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BULSAR, GUJARAT AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
BHANA KHALPA BHAI PATEL v. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BULSAR, GUJARAT AND ANR. NOVEMBER 18, 1997 [M.M. PUNCHHI AND M. SRINIVASAN, JJ.] Customs Act, 1962/Gold Control Act, 1968-Sections 108, 135 (1-A) A B & (1-B)/Section 25-Contraband Gold-Search & seizure-Statements C recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act-Testimony of co-accused- Conviction by Trial Court-Confirmed by High Court-Held, statements recorded under Section I 08 of the Customs Act are admissible in evidence- Courts below were justified in considering the evidence of co-accused- Conviction upheld. The appellant along with ten others was prosecuted under Sec. 135 (I- DI A) and 135 (1-B) of the Customs Act 1962 and also under Sec. 25 of the Gold Control Act 1968. The case of the prosecution was that on receipt of an· info'rmation that Contraband. gold was being brought, the Customs Department kept a vigil. It was found that two persons were coming to the coast from the sea and after interrogation it was learnt they were to give E signals after coming to the coast. In the meantime the officers saw red signals being flashed from the house of the appellant, situated nearby. There were three persons who had flashed red signals. It was learned from the accused that 16 pockets of gold were dumped in the sea. The officers took out 32000 to las of gold from the sea. Statements were recorded under Sec. 108 of the Customs Act 1962 and a complaint was filed by the Assistant F Collector against the accused. Accused no. 9 who was working as Driver with the appellant pleaded guilty and was convicted and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment. After his .release he gave evidence (as PW- 27), that the work was done for the appellant and he was being paid by the appellant whenever he wanted money. The statements of other accused also G specifically implicated the appellant. The Trial Court after examining the witnesses convicted and sentenced ·the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of6 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000. On appeal the High Court while confirming the conviction partly allowed the appeal by reducing the sentence of imprisonment. H 163 164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. A Aggrieved by the said judgment the appellant has preferred the presi!nt appeal. The contention of the appellant was that courts below have acted on the sole uncorroborated testimony of PW-27. It was further contended that the entire case of the prosecution against him was wholly unbelievable as there B was nothing on record to connect him with the alleged occurrence. Dismissing the appeals, this Court HELD : I. I. The appellant was guilty of the offence for which he was prosecuted. There is no reason to differ from the conclusion arrived at by C the trial court and High Court. 1167-F; 168-BI 1.2. It cannot be accepted that the entire case rests on the sole uncorroborated testimony of PW 27 who was a co-accused. Several statements have been recorded under the Customs Act, "1962 and marked as Ex. 23 to Ex. 31. The statements recorded under the Customs Act have been duly D proved by the officials concerned. The courts below were satisfied that there was no threat or inducement and that the relevant provisions of law were explained to the persons who gave the statements. The statements were found to be voluntary and not· vitiated in any manner. The courts below were therefore justified in accepting the contents of those statements and considering the evidence of PW 27 in addition there to. The discussion and E appreciation of evidence by the courts below do not suffer from any infirmity. 1166-H; 167-C; E-F; 168-A-BI 1.3. It is well settled that statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act are admissible in evidence. [167-GI p Ramesh Chandra v. State of West Bengal, AIR (1970) S.C. 940 and K./. Pavunny v. Asst/. Collector (H. Q.) Central Excise. Col/ectorate, Cochin, (19771 3 sec 721, relied on . Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar, AIR (1964) S.C. 1184, referred to. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. 566- G 568of1981. From the Judgment and Order dated 18.2.81 of the Gujarat High Court in Crl .A. Nos. 1008/80, 546 and 884of1979. M.C. Bhandare, (Sanjay Mani Tripathi,) for Ms. Rani Jethmalani for the H Appellant. B.K.ll. PATEL 1•. ASSTT. COLLECTOR OF CUST., BULSAR, GUJARAT[SRINIVASAN,J.] J 65 A. Subha Rao, R.N. Verma and V.K. Verma for the Respondent
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.