Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Percy Rustam Basta, was convicted by the Presidency Magistrate, Mazgaon, Bombay for offences under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 and under Section 135 of the Customs Act. He was sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000 for each charge, to run concurrently. The case involved an alleged conspiracy to smuggle wrist watches and other luxury goods from Dubai to India, with the appellant being one of several accused. The trial court relied substantially on a confessional statement (Ex. T) recorded by Customs Officers under Section 108 of the Customs Act on January 7, 1964. The appellant challenged the admissibility of this statement, contending that it was obtained by threat because the recording officer warned him that he was bound to state the truth as the proceeding was a judicial proceeding to which Sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code applied. The Bombay High Court affirmed the conviction, rejecting the objections based on Article 20(3) of the Constitution and Sections 24 and 25 of the Evidence Act. In the Supreme Court, the only contention raised was whether Section 24 of the Evidence Act barred the admissibility of Ex. T. The appellant argued that he was in the position of an accused and the warning amounted to a threat, rendering the statement involuntary. The State argued that the statement was voluntary and the warning merely drew attention to statutory provisions, which did not amount to a threat. The Supreme Court examined the circumstances under which Ex. T was recorded: the appellant went to the Customs House at 8 A.M., was served a summons under Section 108, and the statement recording continued from 11:30 A.M. to 8:30 P.M. with breaks. The Court noted that the Customs Officers did not threaten or induce the appellant, but had drawn his attention to the last paragraph of the summons and explained the provisions of Section 193 IPC. The Court held that a statement by a person against whom an inquiry is being held under Section 108 is not a statement made by a person accused of an offence, as required by Section 24 of the Evidence Act. It relied on Romesh Chandra Mehta v. State of West Bengal and Illias v. Collector of Customs, Madras. The Court further held that any compulsion to speak the truth emanated from the statute itself, not from the officer, and therefore did not constitute a threat. Even assuming there was an inducement or threat, the appellant had no basis to suppose that he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil with reference to the proceedings. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.
Headnote
A) Evidence - Admissibility of Confession - Statement Under Section 108 Customs Act - Section 24 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Statement by a person against whom an inquiry is held under Section 108 of the Customs Act is not a statement made by a person accused of an offence - Essential ingredient of Section 24 requiring confession by an accused person is absent - Held that Section 24 has no application to statement of appellant recorded by Customs Officers (Paras Not mentioned) B) Evidence - Confession - Threat - Compulsion from Statute - Section 24 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Compulsion to speak truth emanates from the provisions of the statute itself, not from the officers recording the statement - Officers merely drew attention to statutory provisions, which does not amount to threat - Held that no threat within the meaning of Section 24 (Paras Not mentioned) C) Evidence - Confession - Threat - Warning of Prosecution - Section 24 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 193 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Being told that the law required him to tell the truth and that false statement would lead to prosecution under Section 193 IPC does not constitute a threat under Section 24 - Held that such warning does not taint the statement (Paras Not mentioned) D) Evidence - Confession - Inducement - No Advantage or Avoidance of Evil - Section 24 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Even assuming threat or inducement existed, the appellant had no basis to suppose that making the statement would gain any advantage or avoid any evil with reference to the proceedings under inquiry by Customs Officers - Held that Section 24 does not apply on this ground as well (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 bars the admissibility of a statement recorded by Customs Officers under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 when the person was warned that he was bound to state the truth as the proceeding was a judicial proceeding to which Sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code applied.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court were upheld. Statement Ex. T was held admissible and not barred by Section 24 of the Evidence Act.
Law Points
- Statement under Section 108 Customs Act
- 1962 is not a statement by an accused person
- Section 24 Evidence Act requires the confession to be made by an accused person
- Compulsion to speak truth emanates from statute not from officer
- Warning of prosecution under Section 193 IPC does not constitute threat
- No inducement or advantage to avoid evil under Section 24
- Customs officers are not police officers under Section 25 Evidence Act
- Voluntary statement admissible
