Statements taken under duress cannot be relied upon

PJ/Case Laws/2010-11/1009

Case: Asstt. Coll. of Cus. (Prev.), Mangalore v/s Abdulla @ Abdulla Kunhi

Citation: 2010 (260) E.L.T. 181 (Kar.)

Issue:- Different statements were given by different people at different time. In such a case how the prosecution proceedings are to be dealt with?

Brief Facts:- The Asst. Collector of Customs got credible information that contraband gold is concealed in the room of Hotel Rivera, Mangalore. They conducted a search of the said premises in the presence of the witnesses. It is the case of the prosecution that Respondents No. 1 to 3 were found in the said room. During the course of search, an old Samsonite Pouch and some bundles of currency were found in the drawer of the said room. The Pouch contained five palates of gold of foreign origin. When counted, the currency amount to Rs. 34,800/-. The smith who tested the gold palates certified that they are 24 carat of purity gold. Immediately, a panchanama was drawn and the property was seized. Thereafter, A1 and A3 were produced before the custom officials. A1 gave statement saying that he is managing partner of hotel Rivera and that the above pouch was given to him by A2 and further they gave statement to the effect that A3 was employed for disposal of the pouch on the basis of commission. Thus it was alleged that they had contravened the provisions of the Customs Act and Gold Control Act.

Accordingly, prosecution proceedings were initiated against the respondents. But the Trial Court acquitted the respondents.

Appellant’s Contentions:- Revenuesubmitted that as per Sec. 108 of the Customs Act, the statement given by the accused persons to the Customs Officer as per Ex. P2 to P4 are admissible in law and therefore, statement containing the fact that respondents were in possession of gold biscuits. Further, it was submitted that the evidence of officers of MINT is relevant and is admissible in law. Further such a report can be produced before the court of law for the purpose of proving the case.

Respondent’s Contentions:- Respondent submits that referring to the evidence of PWs at the relevant time the respondents were in the custody of the customs officers and that the statement was taken either by threat or by promise of some form. Therefore, they cannot be relied upon. So far as recovery of gold is concerned, no independent witness is examined in the case. Therefore it was submitted that the prosecution case is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Reliance was placed on following judgments:

Asst. Collector of Central Excise, Rajamundry v. Duncan Agro Industries Ltd. [2000 (120) E.L.T. 280 (S.C)]
Asst. Collector of Customs v. Pratap Rao Sait [1972 CRL L.J. 1135]
Hira H. Advani. V. State of Maharashtra [1983 (13) E.L.T. 1413 (S.C)]
Harbansingh sardar Lenasingh v. the State of Maharashtra [2004 (177) E.L.T 13 (S.C)]

Reasoning of Judgment:- The High Court was of the opinion that the said certificate does not bear any seal of the office from which it is supposed to be originated nor it contains any information of the office where the said certificate was issued. It is further noticed that the said certificate is a stencil cut form where certain information is not filled up in hand nor the person who has signed it has been examined before the court. It also does not bear any details of examination conducted in respect of the gold articles sent to him. Hence, no reliance can be placed on P6 to hold the material seized is gold of foreign origin.

So far as the statement of the accused person recorded in the case is the evidence that they have produced and recorded the statements. It is to be noted that as soon as witness’s recovered the alleged contraband gold from A1 to A3 were in custody. Further in the statement under Sec. 313 the accused has stated that they were threatened and beaten.

Under the circumstances, the High Court held that the statement alleged to have been made by A1 to A3 is not voluntary and hence, the same cannot be relied on to convict the appellants.

Hence, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt and the judgment of the Trial Court is sound and proper and does not warrant interference by this court.

Decision:- Appeal dismissed.

********

Comments

PJ/Case Laws/2010-11/1009

Post a Comment

Query