FACTS

Veera Ibrahim, appellant was accused No. 2 in the complaint filed by Assistant
Collector of Customs, Preventive Department. Bombay before the Chief
Presidency Magistrate for his prosecution along with one Abdul Umrao Rauf,
accused No. 1 in respect of offences under Section 135(a) and 135(B) of the
Customs Act, 1962 and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947.
The trial Magistrate convicted both the accused on all the three charges and
sentenced them to two years rigorous imprisonment on each count with a
direction that the sentences would run concurrently. Against that judgment, two
separate appeals were filed by the convicts in the Bombay High Court which
acquitted both the accused of the offences under Section 5 of the Imports and
Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and under Section 135(b) of the Customs Act, but
maintained their conviction on the charge under Section 135(a) of that Act
reducing the sentence to one years rigorous imprisonment. The High Court,
however, granted a certificate under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution, on the
basis of which, this appeal has been filed
ISSUE
The main question with reference to which the certificate was granted by the
High Court, was a whether Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 is ultra vires the
provisions of clause (3) of Article 20 of the constitution.
Whether the statement recorded by the Inspector of Customs was hit by sec 24
IEA?

OBSERVATIONS
Even in respect of that offence, the police did not register any case of enter any
F.I.R. which normally furnishes a foundation for commencing a police
investigation. The police did not open the packages or prepare inventories of the
goods packed therein. Indeed, the police appear to have dropped further
proceedings. They did not take any steps for prosecuting the appellant event for
an offence under the Bombay Police Act, 1951. They informed the customs
authorities, who opened the packages, inspected the goods and on finding them
contraband goods, seized them under a panchnama. The customs authorities
called the appellant and his companion to the customs house, took them into
custody, and after due compliance with the requirements of law, the Inspector of
Customs questioned the appellant and recorded his statement under Section 108
of the customs Act. Under the circumstances it was manifest that at the time
when the customs officer recorded the statement of the appellant, the latter was
not formally "accused of any offence". The High Court was therefore right in
holding that the statement recorded by the Inspector of Customs was not hit by
Article 20(3) of the Constitution
To attract the prohibition enacted in Section 24, Evidence Act, these facts must be
established :
(i) that the statement in question is a confession;
(ii) that such confession has been made by an accused person
(iii) that it has been made to a person in authority;
(iv) that the confession has been obtained by reason of any inducement,
threat or promise proceeding from a person in authority;
(v) such inducement, threat or promise, must have reference to the charge
against the accused person;
(vi) the inducement, threat or promise must in the opinion of the Court be
sufficient to give the accused person grounds, which would appear to
him reasonable, for supposing that by making it he would gain any
advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the
proceedings against him.
In the present case, facts (i), (iv) and (vi) have not been established. Thus,
statement was not barred under Section 24, Evidence Act.

JUDGEMENT
The circumstances of the arrest of the appellant while escaping from the truck the
seizure of the truck and the goods, the contraband nature of the goods, the fact
that at the time of the seizure the goods were in the charge of the appellant, the
fact that no duty on these goods had been paid, the seizure of Rs. 2, 000 as cash
from the appellant etc. were proved by evidence aliunde rendered by PWs 1 and
2.
The circumstances established unmistakably and irresistibly pointed to the
conclusion that the appellant was knowingly concerned in a fraudulent attempt at
evasion, if not, fraudulent evasion, of duty chargeable on those contraband
goods.
Thus, the appeal fails and is dismissed."