Voluntary Statements To Customs Officers Can Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has recently reiterated that statements recorded by Customs officers under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, constitute substantive evidence and can sustain a conviction if shown to be voluntary.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta reaffirmed the Gujarat High Court's judgment holding that,

“Statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 by duly authorized Customs Officers are admissible in evidence and do not attract the bar contained in Sections 24, 30, or 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provided they are made voluntarily.”

Endorsing the High Court's reasoning, the Bench further observed:

“Having considered the matter in its entirety, we find ourselves in agreement with the observations made by the High Court. The findings of guilt recorded by the trial Court, which stand concurrently affirmed by the appellate Court as well as the High Court do not suffer from any perversity, illegality, or manifest error warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.”

The case arose from the seizure of 777 foreign-made wristwatches and 879 watch straps recovered in Mandvi, Gujarat, in April 1985. The appellants were convicted under Section 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act.

Although conscious possession of the smuggled goods was not attributed to the appellants, the Court held that their statements recorded under Section 108 were admissible and could be relied upon, especially since the prosecution had also produced corroborative material.

Rejecting the contention that the conviction rested solely on confessional statements, the Court recorded that the appellants had “failed to establish any material to demonstrate that the statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, were obtained under coercion, inducement, or threat.”

However, noting that the recovery dates back nearly four decades, that some appellants had passed away, and that the surviving appellants had already undergone substantial incarceration, the bench reduced the sentence to the period already undergone while affirming the conviction.