Page 221 - ELT_1st September 2020_Vol 373_Part 5

2020 ] JET UNIPEX v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI 659

b. He becomes accused of the offence under the Act only when a
complaint is laid by the competent Customs Officer in the Court of
competent jurisdiction or Magistrate to take cognizance of the of-
fence and summons are issued. Thereafter, he becomes a person ac-
cused of the offence.
c. A statement recorded or given by the person suspected of hav-
ing committed an offence during the inquiry under Section 108 of
the Act or during confiscation proceedings is not a person accused
of the offence within the meaning of Section 24 of the Evidence Act.
d. Though the Customs Officer is an authority within the meaning
of Section 24 of the Evidence Act, by reason of statutory compulsion
of recording the statement or the accused giving voluntary state-
ment pursuant to his appearing either after issuance of summons or
after the appellant’s surrender, such statement cannot be character-
ised to have been obtained by threat, inducement or promise.
e. The collection of evidence under Section 108 and other relevant
provisions relating to search and seizure are only for the purpose of
taking further steps for confiscation of contraband and imposition
of penalty.
f. The selfsame evidence is admissible in evidence on the com-
plaint laid by the Customs Officer for prosecution under Section 135
or other relevant statutes.”
54. Still further in para 25, the Court held as under :-
“25. It would thus be seen that there is no prohibition under the Evidence
Act to rely upon the retracted confession to prove the prosecution case or to
make the same basis for conviction of the accused. Practice and prudence
require that the Court could examine the evidence adduced by the prosecu-
tion to find out whether there are any other facts and circumstances to cor-
roborate the retracted confession. It is not necessary that there should be
corroboration from independent evidence adduced by the prosecution to
corroborate each detail contained in the confessional statement. The Court
is required to examine whether the confessional statement is voluntary; in
other words, whether it was not obtained by threat, duress or promise. If
the Court is satisfied from the evidence that it was voluntary, then it is re-
quired to examine whether the statement is true. If the Court on examina-
tion of the evidence finds that the retracted confession is true, that part of
the inculpatory portion could be relied upon to base the conviction. How-
ever, prudence and practice require that Court would seek assurance get-
ting corroboration from other evidence adduced by the prosecution.”
55. Thus, the statements which are recorded under Section 108 of the
Customs Act, 1962 is intended for setting the law in motion for officers acting
under the Act to investigate and collect evidence for issuing show cause notice
whether under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 or under Section 124 of the
Customs Act, 1962 or under other provisions of the Customs Act, 1962.
56. Such investigation may result in prosecution before the Magistrate’s
Court in which case, persons may be arrayed as “accused” and the persons
whose statements are relied upon may be shown in the list of witnesses.

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st September 2020  221