PERCY RUSTOMJI BASTA versus STATE OF MAHARASIITRA

Citation: [1971] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 35 · Decided: 16-03-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

PERCY RUSTOMJI BASTA 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASIITRA 
March 16, 1971 
[C. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND A. N. RAY, JJ.J 
Customs Act, 1962-S. 108-lnquiry under-Statement made to cus-
toms officers-Admissibility in 
evidence-Evidence Act, s. 24-Person 
against whom inquiry being held not "accused person" within the meaning 
of s. 24-To be told to speak truth on pain of prosecution does not con.: 
sritute threat. 
35 
A 
B 
'fhe appellant was convicted for offences under the Custorns Act, 1962. 
C 
He challenged the legality of his conviction on the ground that bis state-
ment to the customs authorities made on a summons issued under s. l 08 
of the Act and on which the conviction was substantially based was not 
admissible in evidence in vie\\'· of s 24 of the Evidence Act. It was con-
tended that the statement was procured by threat in as much as the officer 
who recorded the statement warned the appellant that he was bound to 
state the truth as the officer was conducting a judicial proceeding to which 
ss. 193 and 228 of the Penal Code applied. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
D 
HELD : (i) A statement by a person against whom an inquiry is being 
held under section 108 is not a statement made by a person accused of an 
offenc~. Therefore, the essential ingredient to attract s. 24, namely that 
the confession must be made by an accused person, is lacking in this case. 
[43 DJ 
Ramesh Chandra Mehta v. State of West Bengal, [1969] 2 S.C.R. 461 
E 
and lllias v. Collector of Customs, Madras, [1969] 2 S.C.R. 613, relied on. 
(ii) A compulsion to speak the truth emanates in this case not from 
the officers who recorded the statement but from the provisions of the 
statute itself. What is necessary to constitute a threat under s. 24 of the 
Evidence Act is that it must emanate from the person in authority. The 
officers recording the statement were only doing their duty in bringing to 
the notice of the appellant the provisions of the statute. [44 C-E} 
F 
(iii) To be told that the law required him to. tell the truth and if he 
did not tell the truth he was liable to be prosecuted under s. 193 Penal 
Code. for giving false evidence did not constitute a threat under s. 24 of 
the Evidence Act. 
(iv) Even assuming that there was an inducement or threat, the ap-
pe11ant had no basis for supposing that by making the statement he would 
gain any advantage or avoid any evil with reference to the proceedings 
G 
in respect of which an inquiry was being conducted by the CUf)toms officers. 
Therefore. even on this ground s. 24 of the Evidence Act bas no applica-
tion. [44 G-H] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 267 
of 1968. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated September 26, 
1968 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 244 of 
1967. 
H 
36 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1971] SUPP. s.c.R. 
A 
A. S. R. Chari, R. Nagaratnam, Janendra Lal and B. R. Agar-
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
wal, for the appellant. 
H. R. Khanna and B. D. Sharma, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Vaidialingam, J.-This appeal by the first accused, on certi-
ficate, is directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court 
dated September 26, 1968, in Criminal Appeal No. 244 of !967 
confirming his conviction and sentence pa~sed against him by the 
Presidency Magistrate, Mazgaon, Bombay for offences under s. 
l 20B I.P.C. read with s. 135 of the Customs Act, 196T(Act 52 of 
1962) (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) and also under s. 135 
of the Customs Act in respect of the articles claimed to have been 
recovered from his possession. 
The short point that arises for consideration in this appeal is 
whether s. 24 of the Evidence Act is a bar to the admissibility in 
evidence of the statement Ex. T given by the appellant to the Cus-
toms Officers on a summons issued to him under s. 108 of the 
Act. 
The appellant along with six others was charged under the 
sections mentioned above and aifter being found guilty was senten-
ced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine 
of Rs. 2,000/- for the charges under s. 120B I.P.C. read with s. 
135 of the Act. He was also sentenced to undergo one year's rigo-
rous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 I - for the charge 
under s. 135 of the Act. The sentences were directed ·to run con-
currently. In default of p&yment of fine, he was also sentenced to 
undergo further rigorous imprisonment for the period mentioned in 
the judgment of the Presidency Magistrate. 
The

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