GULAM HUSSAIN SHAIKH CHOUGULE versus S. REYNOLDS, SUPTD. OF CUSTOMS, MARMGOA

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 476 · Decided: 19-10-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
·c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
GULAM HUSSAIN SHAIKH.CHOUGULE 
v. 
S. REYNOLDS, SUPTD. OF CUSTOMS, MARMGOA 
OCTOBER 19, 2001 
[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
Customs Act, 1962 : Sections 108 and 135. 
Confessional Statement-Contraband goods-Interception of trawler-
Presence of accused on trawler-Arrest-Statement recorded by customs of-
. 
' 
.fleer-Conviction of accused held valid-Held such a statement was neither hit 
by Section 164 Cr.P.C. nor Section 125 Evidence Act. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : Section 164-Applicability of 
Evidence Act, 1872 : Sections 24 and 25-Applicability of. 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
Article 136-Appeal-lnteiference with concurrent findings of fact-
Held not called for. 
The appellant was prosecuted under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 
1962. The prosecution case was that 207 silver ingots were clandestinely 
brought into Goa in a trawler. These contraband ingots were recovered on 
a trawler in which these were to be transported out of Goa. The appellant 
was also present on this trawler at the time of interceptitm. The appellant's 
conviction under Section 135 by Trial Court was upheld by the Appellant 
Court. The revision preferred by appellant was dismissed by High Court. 
The appellant's contention that while recording his statement under Sec-
tion 108 the safeguards provided under Section 164 of th.e Code of Crimi· 
nal Procedure, 1973 were not complied with by the custnms officer was 
rejected by the High Court. It hold that Section 164 of Cr. P.C. was not 
applicable to the confessional statement recorded under Section 108 of the 
Customs Act. Two other points were also urged by the appellant viz; (i) the 
prosecution had failed to establish any connection between the trawler on 
which contraband goods were brought into Goa and the other trawler on 
which the appellant was present and (ii) as the statement under Section 
108 was recorded during period of detention under inducement and threat 
476 
• 
GULAM HUSSAIN SHAIKH CHOUGULE v. S. REYNOLDS, SUPDT. OF CUSTOMS 
4 77 
the same was inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Both 
A 
these points were rejected by the High Court as it did not feel persuaded to 
interfere with the concurrent findings of fact. Hence this Appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. No exception can be taken against the view recorded by 
B 
the High Court that a statement recorded under. Section 108 of the Cus-
toms Act 1962 is neither hit by Section 164 of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973 nor Section 25 of the Evidence Act, 1872. [479-F-G] 
2. The High Court declined to accept on the facts emerging from the 
evidence that the confessional statement was made under inducement and 
threat and physical assault. There is no scope for this Court to interfere 
with the order in that regard in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 
of the Constitution. [483-B] 
Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Rajamundry v. Duncan Agro In-
dustries Ltd. & Ors., [2000] 7 SCC 53, relied on. 
Union Textile Traders v. Shree Bhawani Cotton Mills Ltd., AIR (1970) 
SC 1940; Harbansingh Sardar Lenasingh and Anr. v. The State of Maharasht;-a 
& Anr., Am (1972) SC 1224; K.T.M.S. Mohd. and Anr. etc. etc. v. Union of 
India, [1992] 3 SCC 178; Haroon Haji Abdulla v. State of Maharashtra, 
[1968] 2 SCR 641; Romesh Chandra Mehta v. State of West Bengal, [1969] 2 
SCR 461; Percy Rustomji Basta v. State of Maharashtra, [1971] 1 SCC 847; 
Veera Ibrahim v. The State of Maharashtra, [1976] 2 SCC 302 and Poolpandi 
v. Supdt. Central Excise, [1992] 3 SCC 259, referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1080 
of 2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.4.2000 of the Bombay High 
Court in Crl. R. A. No. 6 of 2000. 
V.B. Joshi and Praveen Jain for the Appellant. 
M. Gaurishankar Murthy, K.C. Kaushik and B.K. Prasad for the Re-
spondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
478 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
D.P. MOHAPATRA, J. Leave granted. 
[2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
Faced with dismissal of the revision application filed by him, challeng-
ing the judgment passed by the Appellate Court dismissing his appeal, the 
accused Gulam Hussain Shaikh Chougule has filed this appeal by special leave 
assailing the judgment of the Courts below convicting him of the offence under 
section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short 'the Act') and sentencing him 
to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.