VEERA IBRAHIM versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [1976] 3 S.C.R. 672 · Decided: 18-03-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. SARKARIA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · 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 
672 
VEERA IBRAHIM 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
March 18, 1976 
[R. S. SARKARIA AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, Art. 20(3), conditions for applicabilitv of, whether 
enquiry is 'accusation' lvithin the meaning of-Evidence Act, S. 24, when 
attracted-What amounts to 'confession' under S. 24. 
A truck was seized with its contents of contraband goods for foreign make~ 
on which no duty had been paid. 
The appellant who was in charge of the 
goods, was arrested while escaping from the truck and Rs. 2000/- were seized 
from him. His statement was recorded under S. 108, Customs Act. 1962. 
The appellant and the driver of the truck. were convicted by the Trial Court. 
under Ss. 135 (a) and 135 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962, and S. 5 of the 
Imports & Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The High Court upheld their con· 
viction under S. 135 (a) of the Customs Act, and acquitted ihem of the other 
charges. 
In appeal by leave granted under Art. 134(1) (c) of the Constitution, the 
appellant contended before this Court that his statement taken under S. 108, 
Customs Act, could not be used against him; firstly, as it was hit by Art. 
20(3) of the Constitution on account of .its havin2 been taken while he was 
already an 'accused' under S. 124, Bombay Police Act, and secondly. it was 
barred under S. 24, Evidence Act, the same being a confession obtained under 
compulsion of law. 
It was also contended that in the absence of the requi-
site notification under S. 123(2), Customs Act, the statutory presumption under 
S. 123 could not be invoked by the prosecution, and without the same. the 
facts of the case were insufficient to establish an offence a2ainst the appellant 
under S. 135, Customs Act. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court, 
HELD : ( 1 ) To claim the benefit of the guarantee against testimonial com-
pulsion embodied in clause (3) of Art. 20, it must be shown, firstly, that the 
person wn.o made the statement was 'accused of any offence', secondly, that 
he made this statement under compulsion. 
Only a person against whom a 
formal accusation relating to the commission of an offence bas been levelled 
would fall within its ambit. [674C-D] 
R. C. Mehta v. State of West Bengal, [1969] 2 S.C.R. 461, applied. 
(2) To attract the prohibition enacted in S. 24 Evidence Act, these facts 
must be established. 
(i) that the statement in question is a confession; 
(ii) that such confession has been made by an accused person; 
(iii) 
(iv) 
that it has been made to a person in authority; 
that the confession has been obtained by reason of any inducement 
threat or promise proceeding from a person in authority. 
(v) Such inducement, threat or promise, must have reference to the 
charge against the accused person; 
(vi) The inducement, threat or promise must in the opinion of the Court 
be sufficient to give the accused person ground, which would appear 
to him reasonable, for supposing that by making it he would gain 
any advantage or avoid any evil of temporal nature in reference to 
the proceedings against him. 
[676F-H, 677 A] 
\ .. 
• 
VEERA IBRAHIM v. MAHARASHTRA (Sarkaria, J.) 
673 
(3) A ~tat~rucnt in order to amount to a 'confession'. must either admit in 
A 
terms the offence, or at any rate substantially all the facts which constitute 
the offence. 
An admission of an incriminating fact. howwover grave, is not 
I 
by itself a confessiop_. 
A statement which contains an exculpatory assertion of 
some fact, which if true, would negative the offence alleged, cannot amount 
• 
to a 'confession'. [677 A-Cl 
• 
Pekala Naraya11a v. R. 66 I. A. 66 Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab [19531 
S.C.R. 94, Om Prakash v. State, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 409, referred to. 
B 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 234 
of 1971. 
From the Judgment and Order dated the 26-3-71 of the Bombay 
High Court at Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 1434 of 1970. 
K. R. Chaudhury and K. Rajendra Chaudhury for the Appellant. 
H. R. Khanna and M. N. Shroff for Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SARKARIA, J.-Veera Ibrahim, appellant was accused No. 2 in the 
complaint filed by Assistant Collector of Customs, Preventive Depart-
ment, Bombay before the Chief Presidency Magistrate for his prose-
cution aJong with one Abdul Umrao Rauf, accused No. 1, in respect 
of offences under ss. 135(a) and 135(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 
and s. 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act 194 7. 
The trial 
Magistrate conv
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.