The Supreme Court has reiterated that a court can base a conviction under the Customs Act, 1962 on a voluntary confessional statement recorded under Section 108. The Court held that such a statement is admissible as substantive evidence, if it is voluntary.
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta heard an appeal by two persons convicted in a smuggling case. Customs authorities had seized 777 foreign-made wrist watches and 879 wrist watch straps, valued at about Rs. 2 lakhs, at Mandvi, Gujarat, in 1985. The prosecution did not attribute conscious possession of the seized goods to the appellants. Even so, the High Court upheld the conviction mainly on the strength of their confessional statements.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellants challenged whether a conviction could legally rest on statements recorded by Customs officers under Section 108, especially when they alleged coercion. They argued that the prosecution relied substantially on these statements. They also referred to allegations of custodial torture relating to a co-accused, whose statement allegedly led to further discoveries.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on merits. In a judgment authored by Justice Mehta, the Court held that Section 108 statements are admissible as substantive evidence, provided they are voluntary. The Court relied on K.I. Pavunny v. Assistant Collector (1997) 3 SCC 721. It reiterated that such statements are not hit by Sections 24, 30 or 34 of the Evidence Act. It also held that the accused must prove coercion, inducement, or other factors that vitiate voluntariness.
The Court noted that Customs authorities have the power “to collect relevant information and evidence relating to contraventions of the Act.” It added that voluntary statements under Section 108 are “substantive pieces of evidence capable of being relied upon” to support the prosecution case.
On the argument that the confessions lacked corroboration, the Court rejected the contention. It observed that the conviction did not rest merely on confessional statements. The prosecution had also produced “tangible corroborative evidence.” The Court therefore found no perversity or legal infirmity in the conviction.
However, the Court took note of the long delay. The incident occurred about 40 years ago. The appellants had already undergone a substantial period of incarceration and were of advanced age. While upholding the conviction, the Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone.
The appeal was partly allowed.
Cause Title: AMAD NOORMAMAD BAKALI VERSUS THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
