Customs Act, 1962 — Section 135(1)(b)(i) — Dealing with smuggled goods — Conviction based on statements under Section 108 — Admissibility and evidentiary value — Held, statements recorded under Section 108 by authorized Customs Officers are admissible and can form substantive evidence if voluntary — Not hit by Sections 24, 30 or 34 of the Evidence Act — Conviction upheld where corroborative material exists. (Paras 20–23) The appellants contended that conviction was founded solely on confessional statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The Court affirmed the High Court’s reasoning that statements under Section 108, if voluntary, are admissible and constitute substantive evidence. The High Court had found that the statements were not shown to be obtained by coercion and that they led to recovery of incriminating articles and money documented by panchnamas, thereby providing corroboration. No perversity was found in concurrent findings of the courts below. Ratio Decidendi: A voluntary statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act is admissible and may sustain conviction, particularly when corroborated by recoveries and other circumstantial evidence.

advocatemmmohan

Customs Act, 1962 — Section 135(1)(b)(i) — Dealing with smuggled goods — Conviction based on statements under Section 108 — Admissibility and evidentiary value — Held, statements recorded under Section 108 by authorized Customs Officers are admissible and can form substantive evidence if voluntary — Not hit by Sections 24, 30 or 34 of the Evidence Act — Conviction upheld where corroborative material exists. (Paras 20–23)

The appellants contended that conviction was founded solely on confessional statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The Court affirmed the High Court’s reasoning that statements under Section 108, if voluntary, are admissible and constitute substantive evidence. The High Court had found that the statements were not shown to be obtained by coercion and that they led to recovery of incriminating articles and money documented by panchnamas, thereby providing corroboration. No perversity was found in concurrent findings of the courts below.

Ratio Decidendi: A voluntary statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act is admissible and may sustain conviction, particularly when corroborated by recoveries and other circumstantial evidence.

---

Criminal Jurisprudence — Article 136 of the Constitution — Interference with concurrent findings — Scope — Held, where trial Court, appellate Court and High Court have concurrently affirmed conviction and no perversity or manifest illegality is shown, Supreme Court will not interfere with findings of guilt. (Paras 23–24)

The Court declined to reappreciate evidence under Article 136, noting that findings of guilt were based on proper evaluation of statutory provisions and evidence on record. The concurrent conclusions did not suffer from manifest error.

Ratio Decidendi: In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136, the Supreme Court does not ordinarily interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless demonstrated to be perverse or legally unsustainable.

---

Customs Offences — Sentencing — Section 135(1)(b)(i) proviso — Reduction of sentence — Long lapse of time — Advanced age — Period already undergone exceeding statutory minimum — Ends of justice. (Paras 24–28)

Though conviction was affirmed, the Court considered mitigating circumstances. The incident dated back to 1985; the recovery was from abandoned pits; several co-accused were acquitted; some appellants had passed away; surviving appellants were of advanced age; and approximately one year of incarceration had already been undergone, exceeding the statutory minimum of six months under the proviso to Section 135(1)(b)(i) as it then stood. In the totality of circumstances, further imprisonment was held unnecessary.

Ratio Decidendi: In exceptional circumstances involving protracted litigation, advanced age of accused, substantial incarceration already undergone, and passage of decades since offence, sentence under Section 135 of the Customs Act may be reduced to the period already undergone while maintaining conviction.

---

Final Order: Conviction under Section 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 affirmed. Sentence reduced to period already undergone. Appellants on bail; bail bonds discharged. Appeals partly allowed. (Paras 28–30)**