K.I. PAVUNNY versus ASSISTANT COLLECTOR (HEAD QUARTER), CENTRAL EXCISE COLLECTORATE, COCHIN

Citation: [1997] 1 S.C.R. 797 · Decided: 03-02-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

K.I. PA VUNNY 
v. 
ASSISTANT COLLECTOR (HEAD QUARTER), 
CENTRAL EXCISE COLLECTORATE, COCHIN 
FEBRUARY 3, 1997 
{K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND 
G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.) 
Customs Act, 1962: Section 108. 
Person suspected by a Customs Officer/authority of having committed 
an offence under the Act-Status of-:-Held: such a person was not an accused 
A 
B 
c 
at that stage-He became an accused only when summons were issued by a 
competent Court/Magistrate when a complaint was lodged by competent 
Customs Officer-Hence, his statement recorded during an inquiry under 
S,108 or d:Jring confiscation proceedings was not that of an accused withir, D 
the meaning of 5.24 of the Evidence Act-Evidence Act, 1872, S.24. 
Person suspected of having committed an offence under the Act-Con-
fessional statement-Recorded by-<:ustoms Officer-Status of such Officer 
and admissibility of such statement in evidence-Held: Such an Officer, 
though not a Police Officer, was an authority within the meaning of S. 24 of 
the Evidence Act-However, a confessional statement recorded by reason of 
statutory compulsion or given voluntarily by the accused pursuant to his 
appearing after summons or on surrender, could not be characterised to have 
been obtained by threat, inducement or promise-Hence, such confessional 
statement was admissible in evidence-such confessional statement although 
subsequently retracted, if found voluntary and truthful, could f omi basis for 
conviction-lt was not necessary that each detail in the retracted conj ession 
be corroborated by independent evidence-However, prudence and practice 
required that court would seek assurance from other evidence to corroborate 
the retracted confession-Evidence Act, 1872, Ss. 24 to 30. 
Statement-Object of recording-Stated. 
-J 
Section 135-0ffence-Jnvolving gold biscuits which were subsequently 
E 
F 
G 
confiscated proved--f'enalty-Fine of Rs.10,000 and Rs.5,000 respectively 
imposed by Supreme Court in substitution of sentence of imprisonment for 1 H 
797 
798 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
~ 
[1997) 1 S.C.R. \ 
A year/six months-Further direction for 2 months' and 1 month imprisonment 
in case of default issued. 
Evidence Act, 1872: Section 24. 
Confessions caused by inducement, threat or promise-Held: confes-
B sional statement given under statutory compulsion or after issuance of sum-
mons or after sun-ender, amounted to confession. 
Sections 24, 30 and 101-106-Use of threat, inducement or 
promise-Alleged-Held: burden of proof was on accused, though it was not 
c 
as high as on the prosecution-Further, once the accused was able to prove 
the facts creating reasonable doubt that the confession was not voluntary or 
was obtained by threat, coercion or inducement, the burden would be on the 
prosecution to prove that the confession was made voluntarily. 
Crimin al Law: 
D 
Mens rea--Whether an essel!tial ingredient of the offence under s.135 
of the Customs Act or Ss. 85 and 86 of Gold (Control) Act-Question left 
open-Customs Act, 1962, S.135--<Jold (Control) Act, 1968, Ss. 85 and 86. 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Section 386. 
E 
Reasons-For disagreeing with trial court-Recording of-By Appellate 
Court-Held: to be given only in respect of relevant aspects and not necessarily 
on eve1y aspect. 
Section 24-Central agency-Sensitive cases under Customs Act, Gold 
F 
(Control) Act and such other Act~Assignment of-By Union of 
India-Held: Such cases should be assigned only to counsel having experience 
and ability in that branch of law to defend their cases so that public justice 
might not suffer and economy of country not put in jeopardy-Constitution 
of India, 1950, A1ts. 134 and 136-Customs Act, 1962, S.135--<Jold (Control) 
Act, 1948, Ss. 85(1)(a) and 86. 
G 
Practice and Procedure: 
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 136 and 141. 
Concession-Wrong concession by party-on question of law-Held: 
H not binding on Supreme Court-Customs Act, 1962, S.130E. 
_.. 
' 
""' 
...... 
.... 
:,-
-
PA VUNNY v. ASSIT. COLLECTOR, (H.Q.) C.E.C. 
799 
Words and Phrases: 
"Accused''-Meaning of-In the context of S.24 of the Evidence Act, 
1872. 
The appellant was acquitted of the charges under Section 135(l)(j) 
of the Customs Act, 1962 and Sections 85(1)(a) and 86 of the Gold 
(Control) Act, 1968, but a Single Judge of the High Court set aside the 
acquittal and convicted the appellant of the aforesaid offences and sen-
tenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of 1 year and 6 months 
respectively.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.