PUKHRAJ PANNALAL SHAH Vs. K K GANGULY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three revision applications arise out of the complaints made by the Customs authorities against the respective accused regarding offences under the Customs Act, 1962, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1962). In Criminal Revision Application No. 368 of 1967, the offence is alleged to have taken place on March 1, 1966 on which date five hundred tolas of gold were seized from the accused Pukhraj Shah. Immediately after detention a summons was served upon him under S. 108 of the Act of 1962 and the statement of the petitioner was recorded by the Customs officer. Eventually, a complaint was filed on August 19, 1966, charging him with several offences. On March 13, 1967, the petitioner made an application to the learned Magistrate before whom the case was being heard contending that the statement recorded by the Customs officer under S. 108 of the Act of 1962 was not admissible in evidence as being hit by S. 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.

(2.) In Criminal Revision Application No. 447 of 1967 the offence is alleged to have occurred on December 26, 1964, when five hundred forty watches were seized from the petitioner, Dady Fatakia. In his case also he was served with a summons under S. 108 of the said Act and his statement was recorded by the Customs Officer. Eventually, a complaint was filed against him also on September 21, 1966. He also filled an application contending that his statement was not admissible in evidence because it was hit by S. 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.

(3.) In Criminal Revision Application No. 475 of 1967 the offence is alleged to have occurred on May 30, 1965, when eleven thousand tolas of gold, were seized from the Petitioner, Punamchand Chopra. In this case the petitioner was accused No. 2 He also raised a similar contention. We are told, in his case, the statement was recorded under S. 107 of the Act of 1962. When the statement was being relied upon before the trial Magistrate, he raised a similar objection contending that his statement before the Customs officer was not admissible in evidence because of S. 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.