NARESH J. SUKHAWANI versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 778 · Decided: 06-11-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.N. KIRPAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
NARESH J. SUKHAWANI 
v .. 
UNION OF INDIA 
NOVEMBER 6, 1995 
B 
fK. RAMASWAMY AND B.N. KJRPAL, J.J.j 
Customs Act, 1962 : 
S.10/f---Forcign CWTency-Scizure of-Statcmc11t of co-accused i11cul-
C 
cati11g the petitio11e1-Evide11tiary value of-Held, statement recorded under 
S.108 is a 111ate1ial piece of evidence-It can be used as substantive evidence 
to co1111ect the petitioner with the offence. 
The Customs Officials seized foreign currency worth lakhs of rupees 
while the same was being exported out of India. On the statement of one 
D of the accused, the Customs Officials searched the premises of the 
petitioner in his absence but nothing incriminating was recovered. Hen\'· 
ever, they initiated proceedings for confiscation of the foreign currency and 
used the statement of the said accused against the petitioner. The Addi-
tional Collector confiscated the foreign currency and imposed a penalty of 
E 
Rs. 1 lakh. On petitioner's appeal, the Collector set aside the order. On 
suo n1otll revision, the Government restored the order of the Additional 
Collector; and the order of confiscation an.d penalty was ultimately af-
firmed by the High Court. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the petition for 
special leave. 
F 
It was contended for the petitioner that the statement of co-accused 
could be used only to corroborate other evidence as one of circumstances 
under S.30 of the Evidence Act but it cannot be used as a substantive 
evidence without corroboration from other independent evidence and as 
such the evidence of the co-accused could not be used to conclude 
G petitioner's complicity in the crime. 
Dismissing the petition, this Court 
HELD : The statement made before the Customs officials is not a 
statement recorded under S.161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 
H It is a material piece of evidence collected by Customs ollicials under S.108 
778 
N .. l.SUKHAWANI v. U.O.l. 
779 
of the Customs Act, 1962. 
That material incriminates the petitioner A 
incul1•ating hin1 in the contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act 
The staten1ent of the co-accused clearly inculpates not only hin1self but 
also the petitioner. It can, therefore, be used as substantive evidence 
connecting the petitioner \Vith the contravention by exporting foreign 
currency out of India. There is no illegality in the order of confiscation of 
foreign currency and hnposition of penalty. There is no ground warranting 
reduction of fine. [780-D-F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) 
No. 23708 of 1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.8.95 of the Bombay High 
Court in W.P. No. 1334 of 1995. 
The following Order of the .Court was delivered : 
The special leave petition arises from the order dated 7th August, 
1995 passed by the Bombay High Court Court in W.P. No. 1334 of 1995. 
The Customs officials at Sahar International Airport, Bombay ap-
prehended 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 
B 
c 
D 
E 
one Mr. Rajcsh Sukha\vani. Thereafter, the Custon1s officials traced the 
Jll:!lilinnl'.r and haJ searched hi~ prcn1iscs nn .Dc:cembcr 2-1, 1991, in. his 
f 
absence, but nothing incriminating \Vas recovered. 
The Customs officials initiated proceedings for confiscation of 
foreign exchange and used the state111ent of Mr. Dudani against the 
petitinncr. After enquiry an<l giving an opportunity to the petitioner, the 
1'\d<litional Collector confiscated the foreign currency an<l imposed a G 
penalty of Rs. I, lakh. When the petitioner challenged the confiscation in 
appcal, the Collector set aside the said order. ()n suo n1otu revision, the 
Ciovern111ent r.:versc<l the order of the C.~ollcctor and restored the order of 
the Additional Collector which was affirmed by the High Court hy the 
in1pugni.:<l order. Thus the special leave petition. 
H 
A 
B 
780 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
The Joint Secretary to the Government, the revisional authority, has 
held lhal the evidence and the statement given by Mr. Dudani incriminates 
the petitioner. This was estab

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